Form and Force an exploration of tectonics

contributing authors: george aguilar ashley brunton matthew dickman giuliana fustagno eddie garcia jason jirele ashton mcwhorter alycia pappan dipen patel alexandra wilson jessica wyatt

Form and Force An Exploration of Tectonics

Authors

George Aguilar Ashley Brunton Matthew Dickman Giuliana Fustagno Eddie Garcia Jason Jirele Ashton Mcwhorter Alycia Pappan Dipen Patel Alexandra Wilson Jessica Wyatt

Special Thanks To

Chad Schwartz Additonal Contributions:

Book Layout and Coordination Dipen Patel Ashley Brunton Matthew Dickman

Cover Design and Coordination Jason Jirele Eddie Garcia

Project Map and References Ashton McWhorter Giuliana Fustagno

Project Credits and Figure Credits Jessica Wyatt George Aguilar

©2017 Department of Architecture, College of Architecture, Planning & Design, Kansas State University

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, or utilized in any form or by any means without written permission of the copyright owners. This book is not for resale and may not be distributed without consent by the Department of Architecture at Kansas State University or its representatives.

All of the photographs and other images in this document were created by the authors – the students in ARCH 750 Investigating Architectural Tectonics, Fall 2017 – unless otherwise noted. Every effort has been made to ensure that credits accurately comply with information supplied. Table of Contents

Preface v Alycia Pappan

Acknowledgments vii

Project Map ix

01 Agosta House | Patkau Architects 1 Ashley Brunton

02 Bavinger Residence | Bruce Goff 13 Jason Jirele

03 Christo Obero Church | Eladio Dieste 25 Giuliana Fustagno

04 Delta Shelter | Olson Kundig 33 Jessica Wyatt

05 Dominus Winery | Herzog & de Meuron 45 Alex Wilson

06 Komyo-Ji Temple | Tadao Ando & Associates 55 Dipen Patel

07 Nest We Grow | Kengo Kuma and Associates 67 Eddie Garcia

08 Sea Ranch Condominium 1 | MLTW 79 Alycia Pappan

09 Shelter for Roman Ruins | Peter Zumthor 89 Matthew Dickman

10 Soe Ker Tie Houses | TYIN Tegnestue 99 Ashton McWhorter

11 Tyler Residence| Rick Joy 111 George Aguilar

Afterword 123 Alex Wilson

References 125 Project Credits 129 Figure Credits 133

iii

Preface | Alycia Pappan

In Studies and Tectonic Culture, architectural theorist and author, Kenneth Frampton wrote:

Based in part on an actual Caribbean hut that he saw in the Great Exhibition of 1851, Semper’s primordial dwelling was divided into four basic elements: (1) the earthwork, (2) the hearth, (3) the framework/Roof, and (4) the lightweight enclosing membrane. On the basis of this taxonomy Semper would classify the building crafts into two fundamental procedures: the tectonics of the frame, in which lightweight, linear components are assembled so as to encompass a spatial matrix, and the stereotomic of the earthwork, wherein mass and volume are conjointly formed through the repetitious piling up of heavyweight elements.1

In the quote above, Frampton emphasizes Semper’s four elements of architecture and the impact they had on the etymology of tectonics. Semper, along with architect Karl Botticher, is widely recognized as a founding father of this line of thought, however these two scholars built their ideas on the theories of those who came before them. One hundred and fi fty years later, a new line of theorists expanded on those early tectonic notions, contributing to a new contemporary perspective. Demetri Porphyrios channels Karl Botticher in his essay From Techne to Tectonics. In the paper, he writes about the tectonic form that “envelop[ed] the bare form of construction with a symbolism of order.”2 Architectural historian Eduard Sekler also built on these historical precedents. In Structure, Construction, and Tectonics he cites the work of Heinrich Wolffl in, building on the theorist’s recognition of “…tectonics as the particular manifestation of empathy in the fi eld of architecture.”3 Each historian over the past century and a half has contributed to a rich lineage of thought by defi ning the meaning of tectonics in their own work. Although these scholars might not necessarily agree on a single defi nition of tectonics, each proposal shares similar roots with the others. This semester, our goal was to defi ne our own understanding of tectonics by engaging with the study of architectural precedents. This interactive class was intended to broaden our systematic way of thinking about the built environment and, through investigation and research, we were able to analyze and think critically about how our precedents related to a series of tectonic themes - anatomy, construction, detail, place, ornamentation, space, and the atectonic. As well as critically understanding these tectonic themes, the class focused on specifi c objectives to develop a tectonic understanding of our projects. The underlying objectives were to understand architecture by considering the past development of tectonic thought, to investigate a project thoroughly and understand the architectural thought behind it, and to be able to succinctly write about architectural tectonics and explicitly demonstrate the evidence found through drawing and construction. Although each of the precedents studied engaged the tectonic in a unique way, the collective set all eleven case studies in this fi nal submission helps to present a comprehensive understanding of the theory of architectural tectonics.

1 Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001), 5. 2 Demetri Porphyrios, In What is Architecture? (New York: Routledge, 2002), 129. 3 Eduard Sekler, In Structure in Art and Science, Edited by Kepes (New York: Braziller, 1965), 91. v

Acknowledgments

We would fi rst like to thank the Department of Architecture at Kansas State University for giving us the opportunity to participate in the Investigating Architectural Tectonics seminar. As a class being offered for the fi rst time, the course has enlightened us to a broader interpretation of the word tectonics and how it fi ts in with the analysis of a building. Going into the semester, we all assumed the defi nition of tectonics was limited to an understanding of the fi ligree nature of a building. By studying an array of philosophical texts, however, we came to realize this idea was a small component of a larger body of knowledge. Some of the authors of these theoretical texts, including Gottfried Semper, Karl Botticher, Kenneth Frampton, Andrea Deplazes, and many more, presented different ideas and conceptualizations of tectonic theory. Many of these authors were revolutionary for their time and we cannot thank them enough for the research they have done. As part of this class, each student had the opportunity develop his or her own chapter for the fi nal book. We must thank our professor, Chad Schwartz, for guiding us through the process of analyzing an architectural precedent and helping us create the text before you. Using his recently published work and many others as precedents, our class was able to create our own book analyzing unique and important constructions located in many different parts of the world. In the same way that our sources have helped us through this process, it is our hope that this book helps you to understand the diversity of ideas housed within the theory of architectural tectonics.

vii Project Map

1 Agosta Residence Patkau Architects San Juan Island, Washington, USA

2 Bavinger Residence 4 Bruce Goff Norman, Oklahoma, USA 1 3 Christo Obrero Church Eladio Dieste 5 Atlantida, Uruguay 2 4 Delta Shelter 8 Olson Kundig Mazama, Washington, USA 11 5 Dominus Winery Herzog & de Meuron Yountville, California, USA

6 Komyo-Ji Temple Tadao Ando and Associate Ehime, Japan

7 Nest We Grow  Kengo Kuma & Associates + College of Environmental Design, University of California-Berkeley Hokkaido, Japan

8 Sea Ranch Condominium I MLTW Sonoma Coast, California, USA

9 Shelter for Roman Ruins 3 Peter Zumthor Chur, Switzerland

10 Soe Ker Tie Houses TYIN Tegnestue Noh Bo, Thailand

11 Tubac House Rick Joy Tucson, Arizona, USA 9 7

6

10

ix Figure 1.1 Aerial Site 01 Agosta House | Patkau Architects

Firm Brief

John Patkau graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1972 with a Masters of Architecture. His wife, Patricia Patkau, fi nished school two years later with a Bachelor of Interior Design. She then continued her education at Yale in architecture, graduating in 1978. After completing their degree programs, the pair founded Patkau Architects, a design-research fi rm originally located in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. Patkau Architects is now situated in Vancouver in the Pacifi c Northwest, which has had a dramatic infl uence on their architecture.1 The fi rm’s varied work includes art instillations, houses, educational and hospitality facilities, and city planning. Patkau Architects tends to focus on smaller projects, allowing the architectural result to take precedent over project management.2 Due to their attention to detail, the fi rm has won numerous awards and design competitions while also having their work published in a variety of journals and books. Patkau Architects has also published a book, Material Operations, which outlines the fi rm’s architectural research on the response of materials to applications of force. They describe their design process as an investigation of new ways of construction using common building materials to produce expressive forms. According to an interview with John Patkau conducted by The Canadian Architect, “Patkau Architects strives for excellence by exploring the richness and diversity of architectural practice, understanding it as a critical cultural act that engages our most fundamental desires and aspirations.”3

Project Brief

William and Karen Agosta commissioned Patkau Architects to design them a house on San Juan Island, Washington, which was completed in 2000. The couple’s dream was to build a house resembling the Metler Shelter Development in Karen Patkau’s hometown in Massachusetts. This development was conceived as a home away from the density of the city and focused on environmental preservation. The Agostas chose Patkau Architects because they wanted to work with a fi rm that would strive for excellence while designing a house to accommodate their simple lifestyle. The home was to be unassuming, low- maintenance, and made from simple materials.4 Topography and climate are as crucial to this project, as they are in all of Patkau’s architecture. The Agosta House was placed on the top of a hill in the middle of a Douglas-fi r forest on 43 acres of land (Figure 1.1). San Juan Island is sheltered by the Olympic Mountains from winter storms brought in from the ocean, producing a “rain shadow” and creating the driest area in western Washington. Besides the lack of rain, other critical climactic details include an average summer temperature of 50 degrees 1 Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius) and winter temperatures between 30 and 40 degrees Fahrenheit (-1 to 4 degrees Celsius). Responding to these site conditions, the overall form of the residence and the placement of the building on the site reinforce the sustainable goals of the project. To combat the cool weather, skylights from the southeast let in direct light to warm the house passively. The placement of the building takes advantage of a clearing in the forest to the northwest that allows spring and summer breezes to provide air movement in the house while also utilizing the dense trees to the southwest to block the moist winds of the fall and winter seasons. The tilted walls of the residence are also angled to redirect cold southwestern winds over the house (Figure 1.2). The house is divided into three zones: the offi ce/guest room, the master bedroom, and the public spaces (Figure 1.3). Patkau introduces void space into the house through “erosions,” which create courtyards between the zones (Figure 1.4).5 The fi rm values this more ambiguous division of space, utilizing differentiation and the juxtaposition of different scales as a formal strategy (see Space for further information).6 These courtyard spaces emphasize the integration of nature and the building, a condition reinforced by the material palate, which highlights local materials and the surrounding context. These design decisions also reinforce the desired qualities of the Agostas’ dream house – unassuming, low- maintenance and made from simple materials – allowing the building to fi t within the context, perform effi ciently, and accommodate the family’s lifestyle.

1 5 10 Figure 1.2 Section

Legend Entry 1 Living Room 2 Dining Room 3 Kitchen 4

5 Master Bedroom 5 11 9 2 Storage/Mechanical 6 3 Mud Room 1 7 Covered Walkway 8 8 6 7 4 Terrace 9 Garden Shed 10 Guest Room 11 10 12 Studio 12 13 Fenced Garden 13

1 5 10 Figure 1.3 Floor Plan 2 Agosta House

Figure 1.4 Courtyard Space

Tectonic Principles

Place The history of San Juan Island infl uences the tectonic composition of the Agosta Residence. Since the islands were highly populated by farmers due to their rich soils and bountiful resources, the predominant building type became distinctly agricultural. Agricultural architecture on San Juan Island was primarily constructed of a metal, pitched roof on a wood-framed structure and was confi gured as a simple longitudinal volume. This construction type continues to prevail today. Harry Mallgrave’s writing, Gustav Klemm and Gottfried Semper: The Meeting of Ethnological and Architectural Theory, refers to Gottfried Semper’s philosophy of primitive dwelling as the “original forms.” Semper divides these original forms into two components: “vertical inclosure” and the “roof.”7 These primitive dwellings eventually evolved into agricultural building types similar to those found on San Juan Island. To respect the history of these agricultural forms, the architects derived the formal language of the Agosta House from this architectural lineage. Karl Botticher, a 19th century German archaeologist who specialized in architectural tectonics, notes how architectural styles change from these preliminary forms over time. In The Principle of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building, Botticher describes the process of creating modern architecture to embody the essence of a previous architectural style. He emphasizes the need to respect an architectural tradition, but recognize that styles morph over time.8 The Agosta House responds to the arguments of both Semper and Botticher. The ‘vertical inclosure’ of the Agosta House is tilted, but it retains the overall pitched roof and longitudinal plan from the traditional agricultural forms (Figure 1.5). With respect to construction, the house exhibits the time- tested, wood-framed system of the traditional structure, modifi ed to match the new profi le of the enclosure. Materiality and the overall form of the Agosta House support Botticher’s positions. The materials emulate the corrugated metal roofs and the wide wooden panels used on historic barns (Figure 1.6). The interior spaces are differentiated by utilizing horizontal wood paneling. The Agosta House respects the tradition of the agricultural building type by retaining the overall form, the material palate, and the wood-framed structural system. 3 AdaptedAgosta FormAdapted Form - The traditional agricultural form was tilted while Figure 1.5 maintainingThe traditional the longitudinal agricultural plan. form was tilted while maintaining the longitudinal plan. Architectural Style Origin

Figure 1.6 Vertical Metal Exterior Cladding 4 Agosta House

Courtyard Spaces Placed Between Courtyard Spaces Placed Between Figure 1.7 Structural Units StructuralThe tilted Units wood - The frames tilted woodare truncated frames to allow for Voids Within the Framework arecourtyards truncated to to allow penetrate for courtyards the overall to form. penetrate the overall form.

Space In …Ways of Building, Botticher explains how the covering defi nes the spatial identity of a structure:

The essence of any particular style is indicated by the system according to which the covering of a space is articulated into parts or structural units. For possible form of an enclosed space is contingent on the possible form of the covering, and both of the overall plan and its particular layout depend on the organization of the covering. With all styles of covering is the factor that determines the placing and confi guration of the structural supports, as well as the arrangement and articulation of the walls by which space is enclosed, and fi nally the art-forms of all these parts related to it. Therefore, the covering reveals the structural principle of every style and constitutes the criterion by which to judge it.9

The Agosta House transformed the traditional pitched roof form through the integration of tilted frames at 3 foot (.9 m) intervals. As Botticher mentions, space is created by the overhead roof plane. The roof plane determines the structural supports that are necessary, which also effect the defi nition of the space. From that structural grid, spaces are then subtracted to create courtyards between programmatic groupings (Figure 1.7). To categorize the programmatic units into these spatial cells, the Agosta House was divided into three zones: the master bedroom, the public areas, and the offi ce/guest room. These zones were separated to create privacy within the three realms (Figure 1.8). In the book Patkau Architects, Kenneth Frampton says:

5 Figure 1.8 Entry Courtyard Space

6 Agosta House The organization of the house is the result of extruding and then manipulating the section, either by erosion, which produces exterior in-between spaces that divide the house programmatically, or by insertion, which uses ceiling bulkheads to separate the programmatic areas created by the exterior in-between spaces into more fi nely scaled interior areas.10

To reduce the scale within rooms, as mentioned by Frampton, new elements were introduced. Tilted frames provide a grander experience due to the high ceilings, exposed timber framing, and views to nature. To combat the spatial implications of the construction type, bulkheads were added to create more intimate spaces. As previously mentioned, Botticher connects the role of the covering to the organization of vertical structure, which further defi nes the space. In the case of the Agosta House, the roof and the vertical structure are blurred. The frame is one continuous element that goes from roof to ground, except where they have been truncated at the points of erosion. In those instances, the structure is then picked up by a horizontal beam supported by a vertical column.

Anatomy The Agosta House rests on a concrete plinth embedded in the sloping site (Figure 1.9). According to Semper in The Four Elements of Architecture, the mound, or plinth in this case, protects the hearth, which consequently provides a transition between the ground and the structure.11 By raising the home off the ground, it is protected from the cold, damp earth. Semper believed that the framework, the enclosure, and the mound were the original elements of architecture.12 The framework of the Agosta House consists of a simple wood framed structure that is tilted, creating an uneven, pitched roof. The pitched roof structure is supported by large wooden beams that are then upheld by vertical columns throughout. The hearth of the Agosta House is the fi replace, which sits between the living room and the dining room; it is the social hub of the residence (Figure 1.10). Semper stated that the hearth is “in a single element the public and spiritual nexus of the built domain.”13 In relation to the hearth, Semper recognized that the fi rst tribes gathered around the fi re as a place to gather and socialize.14 The fi re brings people together is this project as well, while also acting as a formal joint by physically connecting the plinth, the framework, the bulkheads, and the enclosure. The enclosure for the Agosta House is fairly simple. The exterior of the building, including the roof and walls, is clad in standing seam metal panels that are attached to ½ inch (1.3 cm) plywood sheathing. In the spaces that have been carved away, however, the surfaces are clad with wood panels to reinforce the overall form. The additive elements, such as the bulkheads, reduce certain spaces to a more intimate scale and house the mechanical units for the residence. Lastly, the site acts as a second layer of enclosure, surrounding the home on three of the four sides and further protecting the residents from the elements.

7 1.1: Plinth - concrete slab acts as intermediate 2:2. FrameworkFramework - tilted frame defi nes Concrete slab spaceacts as intermediate between space ground between and structure Tilted frame defi nes the form form ofof structure. structure ground and structure.

3: Hearth 4: Bulkheads 3. Hearth - 4. Bulkheads - The fi replace connectsthe fi replace elements of connects the home elements of the Soffi ts bring the ceilingsoffi down ts bringto a human the scale ceiling and dow spiritually and physically.home spiritually and physically divide space. human scale and divide s

5. Enclosure 5:- standing Enclosure seam metal panels and the Standing surrounding seam metal forest panels protect and the surrounding the home forest from protect the the elements home.

Figure 1.9 Anatomy

8 Agosta House

Figure 1.10 Fireplace

9 Additional Resources

Projects Tula House, Quadra Island, British Columbia, Canada, 2012 Audain Art Museum, Whistler, British Columbia, Canada, 2016 Seabird Island School, Agassiz, British Columbia, Canada, 1991

References Frampton, Kenneth. Patkau Architects. The Monacelli Press, 2006. Patkau Architects. Material Operations. Princeton Architectural Press, 2017. Patkau Architects. Patkau Architects: Selected Projects 1983-1993. Documents in Canadian Architecture, 1994.

Notes 1 Kenneth Frampton, Patkau Architects (The Monacelli Press, 2006), 108. 2 John Patkau, “A Conversation with John Patkau,” interview by The Canadian Architect, 1993. 3 Patkau, interview. 4 Adele Freedman, A Not So Primitive Hut: For a virgin site in the Pacifi c Northwest, Architecture (Nielsen Business Media Inc., 2001), 78. 5 Frampton, Patkau Architects, 108. 6 Patkau, interview. 7 Harry Francis Mallgrave, “Gustav Klemm and Gottfried Semper: The Meeting of Ethnological and Architectural Theory,” in Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 9 (Spring, 1985), 75. 8 Karl Botticher, “The Principle of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building with Regard to Their Application to Our Present Way of Building,” in What Style Should We Build? (Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1992), 152. 9 Ibid, 154. 10 Frampton, Patkau Architects, 108. 11 Harry Francis Mallgrave, “The Four Elements of Architecture,” in Architectural Theory, (Blackwell Publishing, 2006), 537. 12 Ibid. 13 Kenneth Frampton, “Botticher, Semper and the Tectonic: Core Form and Art Form,” in What is Architecture? Ed. Andrew Ballantyne (New York: Routledge, 2002), 144. 14 Harry Francis Mallgrave, “Gottfried Semper and the Idea of Style,” in Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968 (Cambridge University Press, 2005), 134.

10 11 Figure 2.1 Exterior of the Bavinger HouseFigure on Approach 1.1 12 Aerial Site 02 Bavinger House | Bruce Goff

Architect Brief

Bruce Goff began practicing architecture when he was twelve years old. After his dad forced him to start an apprenticeship at the fi rm Rush, Endacott, and Rush in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Goff started to develop his unique architectural style that was deeply rooted in nature. Although an avid reader of anything related to art, architecture, and fashion, Goff was particularly drawn to the work of Frank Lloyd Wright who he kept in contact with throughout the early portion of his career. Many of his fi rst designs at Rush, Endacott, and Rush were similar to Wright’s Prairie style, and in the offi ce, Goff was even referred to as ‘Frank Lloyd Wright, Junior’.1 Once Goff had graduated high school, he was offered the opportunity to enroll at the Massachusetts’s Institute of Technology and a sponsorship to continue his education at the Beaux Arts in Paris. He strongly considered accepting, but after writing to Wright and Louis Sullivan asking what he should do, Goff decided to continue working. As a result, Goff’s knowledge of architecture was gained solely through practice and a personal pursuit of knowledge, leading him to believe that, “he may have more curiosity than anyone else, but not necessarily more talent.”2 After the depression hit in the 1930’s, Goff moved around looking for work until he was offered a faculty position at the University of Oklahoma in 1947. He quickly became the chair of the architectural department and pushed the school to the forefront of architectural education by encouraging students to design with curiosity and passion.3

Project Brief

In 1950, while in his tenure at the University of Oklahoma, an art professor by the name of Gene Bavinger approached Goff to inquire about the architect designing a house for him and his family. Bavinger’s list of requirements would prove challenging—a large, continuous open space, fabrication from local materials, integration with the surrounding landscape, and use of a minimal budget. The project site was located just outside of Norman, Oklahoma in a heavily wooded ravine. Once Goff saw the site, he developed an idea for “a helix-spiral space with no beginning or ending and of the continuous-present.”5 (Figures 2.1 and 2.2) To help keep costs down, Goff and Bavinger used a variety of strategies and resources. Goff produced very few drawings, instead relying on the precision and dedication of Bavinger for managing the construction process and for supervising the students hired to construct the house. As for the materials, the majority were locally sourced for free or purchased at a very low cost to the client.4 These combined efforts by the architect and owner allowed the project to stay under the set budget of $5,000. 13 Figure 2.2 Floor Plan of Agosta House.

The house is made up of three major components: the spiral rock wall, the roof, and the central column that supports everything but the walls (Figure 2.3). The approach to the house takes you down a small hill where you arrive at rear of the structure. A large pivoting door, sitting between two offset sheets of glass, leads you into the widest part of the spiral where the low ceiling compresses the visitor (Figure 2.4). The interior space then begins to expand upwards, climbing up the central column and around the helix spiral towards the sky. On the outside of the central spiral is the main staircase fl anked by fl oating, carpeted pods that contain a number of primary program spaces. Starting at the bottom of the staircase, the fl oating spaces transition from public to private, as one moves upwards. Each pod contains a closet and is hung from the central structural column. The kitchen, bathroom, and utility closet reside inside the center of the spiral permitting the rest of the spaces to be left completely open. Between the outside walls and the hanging roof above, a continuous skylight offers ample daylight to the interior. The Bavinger House took fi ve years to construct from start to fi nish. The resulting home fulfi lled the Bavingers’ primary goal—one continuous living space that was as organic as it was functional. At the end of the project, Goff concluded by saying, “after several years of hard work and almost inexhaustible patience, the Bavingers have their house which is neither old or new so far as architectural fashion is concerned, but which is timeless.”6 14 Bavinger House

Figure 2.3 Section through pool on ground fl oor

Figure 2.4 Entrance 15 Tectonic Principles

Place Beneath a leafy, Dionysian shade and beside a rippling fountain, a tranquil resting place beckons the astonished wanderer that in whom it raises the desire that…he may forget the longing to return to his dear homeland and pass the days in an eternal dolce far niente.7

Akin to how Karl Botticher, a German architectural theorist and archaeologist, describes the astonishment of seeing Hellenic architecture for the fi rst time in The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building, the Bavinger House is a tranquil resting place, hidden under the canopy of the trees. The house sits at the end of an existing clearing in the woods with its massive stone wall spiraling towards the sky and the central point punctuated by its lone column. This spiral serves conceptually as either the termination point of or catalyst for the adjacent open space, thus the form of the building responds directly to the site and its surrounding environment (Figure 2.5).

Figure 2.5 Continuation of Space between Interior and Exterior 16 Bavinger House To further emphasize the house as a continuation of its site, Goff used daylighting techniques and local materials to promote a synthesis between its interior and exterior spaces. At the entrance, a wall of glass creates an invisible and ambiguous threshold between inside and out.8 This glass wall along with the continuous skylight between the rock walls and fl oating roof then fl oods the interior with daylight that is constantly moving and refl ecting off the stone (Figure 2.6). To make the house look as if it had grown directly from the landscape, Goff used only local materials, while also not disturbing the existing environment of the site. The rock used for the spiral walls came from nearby fi elds, and the wood for the interior was taken from fallen trees that Bavinger had helped his friends clear from their property.9 The central column—the most expensive component of the project—was a deep well drilling pipe that Bavinger repurposed as the center point of the house. Lastly, to strengthen the notion of one continuous space from exterior to interior, Goff left the ground fl oor to be representative of the landscape that was there before the house was constructed. This design decision led to the fl oor being composed of a collection of plants and pools, along with outcroppings of the original bedrock on which the house was built.

Figure 2.6 Interior of Ground Floor

17 1: Hearth - Central column marks the formation and organization of space 2: Enclosure/Earthwork - Stone walls form the spiral 1: Hearth 2: Enclosure | Earthwork The central column marks the formation and The stone walls form the spiral. organization of space.

3: Earthwork3: Earthwork - Ground mounded to form terminus of space 4: 4:Framework Framework - Stairs and pods wrap up around the inside of spiral to form The ground is mounded to form the terminus of the space. The stairs and pods wrapprogramatic up around spaces of the the houseinside of the spiral to form the programmatic spaces of the house.

5: Roof - Pushes space around and up towards the sky 6: Framework - Wall of glass is placed at entrance to blend interior and exterior 5: Roof 6: Framework The roof pushes space around and up towards the sky. A wall of glass is placed at the entrance to blend the interior and exterior.

Figure 2.7 Anatomy

18 Bavinger House Anatomy The hearth of the Bavinger House is located at the central point of the stone spiral and marks either the ending or beginning of space (Figure 2.7). This point is demarcated by a fi fty-fi ve-foot (16.8 m) steel pipe column. This representation of the hearth does not closely align with German architect Gottfried Semper’s more commonly understood idea of the hearth, “…the social and spiritual center point for the dwelling.”10 Instead, the Bavinger House’s hearth organizes the spiral form of the building and serves as a catalyst for the development of structure and space. This hearth is much closer to Semper’s earlier ideas of the hearth outlined in The Four Elements of Architecture. Here, Semper states, “Throughout all phases of society the hearth formed that sacred focus around which the whole took order and shape.”11 Very little earthwork was needed to start construction on the Bavinger House. The site gently slopes down to a creek and a clearing in the woods. At the end of this clearing, Goff placed the entrance to the home, allowing it to look out into the natural surroundings. To then further emphasize the house as the terminus of the continuous space in the clearing, the earth was sloped up around the rear of the house, so on approach, a visitor is at the same level as the roof before swiftly descending down and around the stone wall to the home’s entrance.

Figure 2.8 Roof on Approach as it Wraps Up and Aroud the Spiral 19 The enclosure is perhaps the most memorable portion of the Bavinger House. The heavy, stone walls rise out of the ground and climb towards the sky, acting as an intermediary between the enclosure and earthwork. Only once someone is inside the house is he or she able to determine how the walls are delineating the interior space from the exterior and providing the expansion of space from the spiral out into the landscape. Lastly, the stairs, fl oating pods, and the roof are hung from the central column to create the framework of the house. From the approach, the roof appears to become part of the ground that is extending up and around the spiral (Figure 2.8). Inside, the stairs and pods appear to cantilever off the stone wall, but because Goff designed them Wall to be hung, the atmosphere on the interior feels incredibly light, as the hearth is what structurally supports all of the program elements.

Central Column CENTRALPrimary COLUMN Structural Support for Entire House PRIMARY STRUCTURAL SUPPORT FOR ENTIRE HOUSE

Tension Cables TENSIONSupporting CABLES Roof, Stairs, and Floating Pods SUPPORTING ROOF, STAIRS, AND FLOATING PODS

Suspended Roof SUSPENDEDSupported ROOF from Central Column SUPPORTED FROM CENTRAL COLUMN

Continuous Skylight CONTINUOUSBetween Roof SKYLIGHT and Stone Wall BETWEEN ROOF AND STONE WALL

Stacked Stone Wall STACKEDForms the STONE Spiral WALL of the House FORMS THE SPIRAL OF THE HOUSE

Figure 2.9 Section of Structural System

20 Bavinger House Stereotomic | Atectonic In his essay Structure, Construction, Tectonics, Eduard Sekler, an architectural historian, states that tectonics is a term that should be used when, “…a structural concept has found its implementation through construction...”12 As one stands inside the Bavinger House, the roof, stairs, and hanging pods seem to be supported by the stone wall and the entire structure appears to be load bearing. The construction of this stone wall, after all, required an incredible amount of work and energy, with Goff concluding, “…Gene lifted and shifted every-one of the stones…in the 200 ton stone wall, at least four times until they satisfi ed his excellent aesthetic sense.”13 But although the spiraling stone wall resembles load-bearing structure from its stereotomic nature, it in fact does not structurally support any part of the house. Goff designed the stone wall primarily to shape space, as well as to retain the earth as it slopes up around the rear of the home (Figure 2.9). He highlighted this design decision by placing a skylight between the top of the wall and the edge of the roof. This placement underscores the structural separation between the stone wall and the roof, stairs, and fl oating pods (Figure 2.10). By hanging all the elements from the column, Goff allows visitors to have a moment of clarity when they fi nally stand under the skylight and, through this detail, he expresses how the stone wall is atectonic, in that it appears to support all the elements of the house, but instead is just shaping space.

Figure 2.10 Skylight between Stone Wall and Hanging Roof 21 Additional Resources Projects Nicol House, Kansas City, Missouri, United States, 1964 John Frank House, Sapulpa, Oklahoma, United States, 1955 Boston Avenue Methodist Church, Tulsa, Oklahoma, United States, 1929

References Cook, Jeffrey. The Architecture of Bruce Goff. Harper & Row, 1978. De Long, David Gilson. Bruce Goff: toward absolute architecture. The MIT Press, 1988. Goff, Bruce. “Bavinger House and Price House,” Global Architecture 33, (1975).

Notes 1 Jeffrey Cook, The Architecture of Bruce Goff, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1978), 3. 2 Ibid., 9. 3 Ibid., 30. 4 Bruce Goff, “Bavinger House and Price House,” Global Architecture 33, (1975): 2. 5 David DeLong, Bruce Goff, Toward Absolute Architecture, (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1988), 106. 6 Goff, Global Architecture 33, 3. 7 Karl Botticher, The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building, (1992), 148-149. 8 DeLong, Bruce Goff, Toward Absolute Architecture, 107. 9 Cook, The Architecture of Bruce Goff, 50. 10 Harry Mallgrave, “Gustav Klemm and Gottfried Semper: The Meeting of Ethnological and Architetural Theory,” RES: Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 9, (Spring, 1985): 75. 11 Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851), 102. 12 Eduard F. Sekler, “Structure, Construction, Tectonics,” In Structure in Art and in Science, ed. G. Kepes, (New York: 1965), 89. 13 Goff, Global Architecture 33, 3.

22 23 Figure 3.1 Street View of Main Entrance 24 03 Cristo Obrero Church | Eladio Dieste

Architect Brief

Only the essential fi nds a place in Dieste’s work. He knows that his is a path taken from the tectonics and industrial side, but he is convinced that it leads to new avenues.1 (Figure 3.1)

Eladio Dieste was born in Artigas, Uruguay. In 1943, he received a degree in civil engineering from the University of the Republic of Uruguay, located in Montevideo. He later taught at his alma mater and was an honored professor in 1992 and 1993. He worked in numerous offi ces early in his career before founding his construction fi rm “Dieste and Montañez S.A” with his colleague Eugenio R. Montañez in 1956. He spent most of his professional career in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil, but he taught and lectured in many different universities in United States, Europe and South America as well. The work of Eladio Dieste is widely admired by individuals from many disciplines. The technician admires Dieste’s wisdom with the structures he created. The sociologist admires how Dieste always thought about the community when he was designing a project and the economist admires how Dieste could construct magnifi cent buildings at a low cost, using the resources at hand. Marina Waisman, an Argentine architect, believes Dieste’s secrets lie in his concept of unity between forms, materials, workers and construction processes.2 This unifi cation of systems is evident in Dieste’s work with reinforced ceramics, which are well-suited for the shell structures that the architect experimented with throughout his career. Ceramics is a traditional material in Uruguay and Dieste wanted to explore its potential while utilizing the abundance of skilled workers working his home country.

Project Brief

Cristo Obrero Church is located in Atlántida, 40 kilometers (25 miles) away from Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay. In 1952, Eladio Dieste was contracted to design a vault and after a long process his contract was extended to include a new church, which was completed in 1960. This church was Dieste’s fi rst commission, but even at this time his design sensibilities were clearly present. In this design, Dieste wanted his work to refl ect the economic and social conditions of Uruguay. Atlántida is a village of manual and agricultural workers so instead of hiring people from prestigious fi rms, he hired local workers who had expertise in working with ceramics. The major programmatic spaces include; the main nave, the altar, the Chapel of the Virgin, a baptistery, a confessionary, a sacristy and the choir that located above the entrance (Figure 3.2). This 25 DOWN

UP Figure 3.2 Floor Plan

Legend

Baptistery 1 Confessionals 2 Nave 3 Presbytery 4 Chapel of the Virgen 5 Secretary 6 Antesacristy 7

Figure 3.3 Longitudinal Section

choir is a balcony made entirely of brick. The lower part of the balcony’s fl oor is made of mirror brick and the upper part is regular brick, which acts as fl oor fi nishing and structure. The baptistery is in the basement with its own entrance and has a circular fl oor plan. The overall dimensions of the church are 16 meters (52.5 feet) wide by 30 meters (98.5 feet) long. The church has two 7-meter-high (23 foot-high) undulating structural walls, which are made out brick. These walls are supported by in situ piles and are anchored to the ground with sand mortar. From the street, a double-curvature vaulted roof begins above the main entrance, supported on each side by the undulating walls (Figure 3.3). The walls and the roof meet at and are connected to each other with a brick crown. The walls and roof were reinforced with wires, strengthening the brick and reducing the crown: head of any part cost of construction. The two end walls are non-structural, and are not attached to the undulating walls, of a building, especially of an arch or vault a move visible from the interior of the church. Light was brought into the building in two different ways. First, there are brick louvers on the second fl oor, at the choir. These louvers were placed in non-structural walls, to avoid any structural complications. And second, there are small windows located in the undulating walls. These windows were complex to locate and Dieste had diffi culties fi nding the optimal position to maximize the potential of the colored glass with the amount of light available at a given time (Figure 3.4). Dieste explains that these windows were specifi cally located to accentuate the formal fl uidity of the brick walls.3

26 Cristo Obrero Church

Figure 3.4 (left) Colored Glass Windows Placed in Undulating Walls

Figure 3.5 (right) Exterior View of Brick Walls and Roof

Tectonic Principles

Place Whether engaging environmental factors, the surrounding infrastructure, or the cultural needs of the inhabitants, architectural tectonics is being redefi ned by the world around it.4 - Chad Schwartz, Introducing Architectural Tectonics

Eladio Dieste is known for choosing brick as the main material for construction. In the book Eladio Dieste 1943-1996, Dieste talks about the environmental, structural and cultural reasons why he used this material for his projects (Figure 3.5). First, there are manufacturers in Uruguay, Argentina and Brazil that produce high-quality bricks at low cost. Second, brick has a smaller elasticity component than concrete, but it still has an equal resistance. This attribute is an advantage because the structure has a greater adaptability to strains. Third, brick ages well and resists sudden temperature changes, which are common in coastal cities or towns in Uruguay. Fourth, brick provides a good thermal insulation and this can even be increased by introducing perforations. Brick, in comparison to concrete, radiates less heat during summer and it also takes less of our heat during winter. It can also naturally regulate humidity. And his last point is that the cost of the structure is very low, comparing to other materials (Figure 3.6).

27 Risk of defl ection, if it exists, Risk of deflection, if it exists, can be avoided can be avoided

CostCost of of structure structure is is very very low,low, comparingcomparing toto otherother materials BrickBrick has has the the capacity capacity toto “naturally” “naturally” regulate regulate humidityhumidity

GoodGood thermal thermal insulation insulation Figure 3.6 Economic and Environmental Advantages of Brick

Stereotomic Eduard F. Sekler, an architectural historian, explains the relationship between structure and construction in his essay “Structure, Construction, Tectonics”. Structure is the more general and abstract concept referring to a system or principle while construction refers to the concrete realization of that system or principle.5 Semper, an architect and archeologist, classifi es two construction typologies: tectonic and stereotomic. Cristo Obrero Church is an example of stereotomic construction (Figure 3.7).

Figure 3.7 Interior View Showing How Walls Meet the Roof 28 Cristo Obrero Church Stereotomic construction is characterized by piled or stacked elements like stone, brick and earth.6 The stereotomic character of the project, conveyed through the brick construction, clearly affected the structure of the building and the means by which it was constructed. Eladio Dieste explains that the mathematical explanations for the walls and roof are very complex. Each wall is 30 cm (11.8 inches) thick and consists of two conoids, which according to Diccionario de Arquitectura y Construccion are surfaces generated by a series of lines that are supported at one end as a fl at curve – in this case the crown – and on the other end as straight line – at the ground in this case. These conoids walls have a directrix: a line describing a straight directrix at fl oor level. During the construction of the walls, wire reinforcement, measuring 30 curve or surface mm (.11 inches) in diameter, was necessary to lay out the directrix. The wall was anchored to the ground using sand mortar and a horizontal crown was placed at the top to act as an eave and to absorb the thrust of the roof (Figure 3.8).

VaultedVaulted Roof Roof Brick - Brick

ReinforcementReinforcement

RafterRafter- - Brick Brick

ConoidConoid Walls- Walls Brick - Brick

Figure 3.8 Stereotomic Construction In the book Eladio Dieste 1943-1996, Dieste briefl y explains how the roof works. To understand this element, it is necessary to differentiate two areas within the vault. The fi rst area is the one that acts as Gaussian vault: vault with a Gaussian vault and that is anchored to the wall’s crown and the other area, which has less curvature, a double curved geometry that is based on the catenary is hanging from the fi rst one. The characteristics of a Gaussian vault can be summarized in the following resulting in mainly axial points; First, the combination of brick, mortar and iron performs a structurally viable unit. Second, the compressive forces catenary is chosen as a directrix, then the weight of the vault produces compression and this makes the structure able to resist defl ection. Third, the stress caused by the weight is independent of the section. Fourth, the reinforcement assures that the length of the vault reacts in an elastic way in relation to the loads. And lastly, we should know that the only material that needs to harden is the mortar and it rapidly acquires a resistance that stabilizes the vault. Unlike the double-curvature vault that requires support at all ends, this type of vault does not need support at each of the four ends because it acts as beam.7

Space Karl Bötticher, a German archeologist and architectural theorist, said in his text The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building with Regard to Their Application to Our Present Day of Building that there are three steps to generating architecture from spatial development. The fi rst step explains that the fl oor plan is arranged based the human need and society’s social customs.8 For this project, Dieste had to consider how people ceremonially move through space when attending mass. As such he had to acknowledge the universal rules that control the formal arrangement of a church, some of which Dieste elected to follow while others were modifi ed to fi t his version for the space.

29 For the second step in Bötticher’s theory of spatial tectonics, the organization and structure of a building are introduced as the primary shaper of the space.9 In this project, the roof, besides being important for structural stability, plays a big role shaping the space with its curves. It is one of the most important features of the project, along with the side walls. The roof and walls shape the primary spaces of the building, which are the altar and nave. Dieste wanted to connect these two spaces but did not want each to lose its spiritual distinction. To create a hierarchy between the nave and the altar, Dieste raised the altar three steps to create a differentiation and to give more importance to this component of the program. Lastly, Bötticher’s third step is framing architectural space with solids and voids created by the structural scheme.10 Dieste created a void in the interior of a space by not raising the secondary walls all the way until the roof. He wanted people to see how the undulating walls and vaulted roof was a feature of the entire church, and not only something present in the most important places (Figure 3.9) (Figure 3.10).

StructuralStructurally roof roof shapes shapingthe interior interior space space

Secondary walls that Side wallswall surround the altar Figure 3.9 Steps create a hierarchy withince the space Generation of Spatial Development

Figure 3.10 Interior View Showing the Nave and Altar 30 Cristo Obrero Church Additional Resources

Projects Market-Commercial Center, Montevideo, Uruguay, 1985 Casa Dieste, Montevideo, Uruguay, 1968 TEM Montevideo, Montevideo, Uruguay, 1962

References Carbonell, Galaor. Eladio Dieste: La Estructura Ceramica. Bogota: Escala, 1987. Dieste, Eladio. “Architecture and construction.” In Eladio Dieste: Innovation in Structural Art. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2004. Pedreschi, Remo. The Engineer’s Contribution to Contemporary Architecture: Eladio Dieste. London: Thomas Telford Publishing, 2000.

Notes 1 Antonio Jimenez Torrecillas, Eladio Dieste 1943-1996 (Sevilla-Montevideo: Consejería de Obras Públicas y Transportes, 2001), 15. 2 Waisman, Eladio Dieste 1943-1996, 22. 3 Dieste, Eladio Dieste 1943-1996, 157. 4 Chad Schwartz, Introducing Architectural Tectonics (New York: Routledge,2017), xliii. 5 Eduard Sekler, Structure, Construction, Tectonics (New York: Braziller, 1965), 89-95. 6 Schwartz, Introducing Architectural Tectonics, xlv. 7 Dieste, Eladio Dieste 1943-1996, 41 8 Bötticher, The principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building (Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1992), 154 9 Ibid, 154 10 Ibid, 154

31 Figure 4.1 Front View

32 04 Delta Shelter | Olson Kundig

Firm Brief

In 1966, Jim Olson began his architectural practice, which would later transition to Olson Kundig after bringing on partner Tom Kundig in 1986. Olson started the fi rm with the belief that, “buildings can serve as a bridge be¬tween nature, culture, histories and people, and that inspiring surroundings have a positive effect on people’s lives” and because of this, most of Olson’s early work “explored the connection between dwellings and their environment.”1 Although a signifi cant percentage of Olson Kundig’s projects are residential, as it was before Kundig became a partner, the fi rm also designs museums and exhibitions, hospitality projects, academic buildings, commercial works, and religious centers. The fi rm currently has fi ve partners that lead a staff of approximately 160 people out of the original offi ce in Seattle, Washington. Jim Olson and Tom Kundig were joined in the leadership of the fi rm by Kirsten R. Murray and Alan Maskin in 2008, and Kevin Kudo-King in 2015. Recent additions to Olson Kundig include the opening of a location in New York in 2014 to serve the East Coast and International clients and the creation of interiors and landscape studios in the Seattle offi ce, added in 2000. Olson Kundig has earned many accolades including the 2009 National AIA Architecture Firm of the Year, induction to the Interior Design Hall of Fame in 2012, and dozens of national and regional design awards. Olson Kundig has published nine books and a vast number of articles for publications including the New York Times, Architectural Digest, Architectural Record and the like.

Project Brief

The Methow River bank in Mazama, Washington is home to the Delta Shelter, a vacation home designed by Tom Kundig for a client who enjoys spending time exploring the surrounding mountains (Figure 4.1). The retreat is a 1,000-square foot (93-square meter) prefabricated home built to respond to the site. An emphasis is placed on verticality in the project to mimic the mountain range on the horizon and the trees surrounding the site, as well as building to acknowledge the 100-year fl ood plain that the Delta Shelter sits within. The natural palate and raw materiality of the building help to blend the structure into the natural backdrop.2 The Delta Shelter is a three-story home that goes against normal residential standards (Figure 4.2). The ground level contains a carport and utility space that has no interior connection to the rest of the home. To enter the living areas, one would climb an exterior stairway to the front door on the second level of the Shelter. Instead of placing the social areas of the home at the entry of the building, the front door leads to a landing space outside of the sleeping area of the home. Two bedrooms and a bathroom 33 ThirdThird FloorFloor

Second Floor Floor

Ground Floor Ground Floor Figure 4.2 Floor Plans 34 Delta Shelter occupy this second level along with an interior stair to the third fl oor living space and kitchen. The social spaces, housed on the top fl oor of the dwelling, have the best views of the surrounding site. Two cantilevered steel decks, one each on the second and third fl oors, provide outdoor spaces for sleeping and entertaining guests. The structure of the Delta Shelter is simple, but impressive. Four wide fl ange steel columns provide support for the building. The facades of the home consist of planes of wood, glass, and steel. As is the case with many of Olson Kundig’s projects, when the Delta Shelter was designed, sustainability was a key factor. All primary components of the project were prefabricated to reduce on-site waste and to minimize overall site disruption. Refurbished plywood was used for interior surface treatment as well as refurbished tongue and groove wood car decking as fl ooring. All four facades of the house open and shut using an ingenious human powered device. This operability allows air circulation throughout the entire home, eliminating the need for an air conditioner. During the winters, the panels can be closed to keep the heat in from the wood burning fi re place. A clearstory that rises above the steel façade allows light to enter the main living space, even when the exterior panels are closed (Figure 4.3). The sliding panels also act as protection for the residence while the owner is away. When closed, they surround and protect the house in a curtain of steel, creating a virtually indestructible shelter.

Figure 4.3 Section 35 1: Earthwork 2: Columns | Framework 1: Earthwork 2: Columns | Framework With minimal earth contact, true earthwork Steel columns with concrete footings act as the With minimal earth contact, true earthwork Steel columns with concrete footings act as the development is avoided. only four grounded points of stability. development is avoided. only four grounded points of stability.

3: 3:Framework Framework 4:4: SocialSocial Center Center | |Hearth Hearth TheThe steel steel frame frame begins begins to shape to shape the spaces the within. TheThe livingliving space space and and fi fireplacereplace act act as as the the hearth hearth of spaces within. ofthe the Delta Delta Shelter. Shelter.

5: 5:die die Wand Wand | Cladding| Cladding 6:6: diedie Mauer Mauer | |Cladding Cladding LargeLarge glass glass infi lls infills behind behind the steel the givesteel the give enclosure the a TheThe steelsteel facade facade andand exteriorexterior walls walls provide provide a a lightweightenclosure feel. a lightweight feel. solid,solid, protected enclosure.enclosure. Figure 4.4 Anatomy 36 Delta Shelter Tectonic Principles

Anatomy Architect and theorist Gottfried Semper devised a method for categorizing built environments in his work The Four Elements of Architecture. Semper defi ned these elements as the earthwork, the roof, the enclosure, and the hearth. The earthwork is the foundation that receives the building, while the roof shelters the framework and the enclosure defi nes the building’s boundaries. These three elements protect the last piece - the hearth - which is the social center of the structure.3 The Delta Shelter was designed with minimal connection to the earth, avoiding the development of a true earthwork condition (Figure 4.4). Four wide fl ange steel columns, the base of the fi re place, and the foot of the exterior stairway are the only points of contact between the residence and the site. From those columns, a steel frame shapes the building and the spaces within. Plywood interior walls serve as partitions within the frame that defi ne the spaces on the second fl oor. The open living area on the third fl oor is considered the hearth of the Delta Shelter. The hearth, according to Semper, was traditionally connected with the earthwork and was the literal fi re that supported life. In the Shelter’s case, the living space and fi replace serve as the hearth of the home (Figure 4.5). Considered by Semper to be the primary element of architecture, he believed that cladding could be classifi ed into two types of walls. The fi rst was die Mauer, a solid, protective form of enclosure and the second was die Wand, a lightweight screen.4 The cladding of the Delta Shelter is a moveable system that provides enclosure for the residence and, depending on the facades’ confi guration, could be viewed as either wall classifi cation. Roughly half of the exterior cladding of the home is solid while the other half is fi lled with operable windows that create walls that appear as complete glass. These glass walls can be completely covered by steel sheets that create a full protective enclosure for the home.

Figure 4.5 The Social Space and Hearth 37 Space Bruno Zevi, architect and historian, believed in two kinds of space: internal and external. In Architecture as Space: How to Look at Architecture, Zevi states, “…no work lacking interior space can be considered architecture.”5 For a space to be architectural, he argued that the enclosure needs to be subservient to what it contains. Zevi analogized how internal space is much like the concept of a void. A void is a completely open space that, in this comparison, is contained by walls, fl oor, and a roof. Zevi said,

[E]ven if the other arts contribute to architecture, it is interior space, the space which surrounds and includes us, which is the basis for our judgement of a building, which determines the “yea” or “nay” of esthetic pronouncement on architecture. All the rest is important or perhaps we should say can be important, but always subordinate to the spatial idea.6

The movement provided by the façade allows the Delta Shelter to appear as either an open or enclosed building, dependent on the positioning of the steel panels (Figure 4.6). When the façade is closed, the external view of the home would appear as a solid mass. The interior spaces of the Shelter would be private and absent of views to the surrounding site. Upon opening, the façade allows the internal void to spill into the external space (Figure 4.7). The panels themselves do not have to remain fully open or closed, but rather can be positioned where the occupant pleases, allowing for a variety of spatial experiences. The drastic change in spatial properties of the internal and external spaces of the residence can be fully accredited to the façade detail.

WhenWhen the the facade facade is closed, is closed, the internal WhenWhen the the facade facade is open, is open, the internal Figure 4.6 thespace internal becomes space private becomes and protected. thespace internal extends spaceto the external extends space. Spatial Experiences private and protected. to the external space.

38 Delta Shelter

Figure 4.7 The Home in the Surrounding Landsape Figure 4.7 The Home in the Surrounding Landscape

39 Detail In “The Tell-The-Tale Detail,” educator and architect Marco Frascari wrote, “A column is a detail as well as it is a larger whole, and a whole classical round temple is sometimes a detail, when it is a lantern on the top of a dome.”7 Details exist at all scales in a building system. The façade of the Delta Shelter is an example of how one of the largest conceptual ideas and physical elements of a building can be a detail itself, constructed of a series of smaller details. Tom Kundig is known for adding mechanical elements to his designs that create dynamic movement and lead to the transformation of space. The Delta Shelter has four 10’-0” by 18’-0” (3 meters by 5.5 meters) steel panels, one on each face of the building, that can be simultaneously moved along a track controlled by a single human-powered wheel located on the third fl oor. By using a series of drive shafts, gears and cables, the single wheel can open and close the façades with ease (Figure 4.8). When a person turns the wheel, it activates a drive shaft that transitions up to the ceiling. Additional components of the mechanical drive system, including a second drive shaft, runs to a track that lines the top of the third fl oor walls (Figure 4.9). There, the drive system’s motion triggers a set of two gears on the track. These gears rotate pulleys, which control the cables responsible for the movement of all the steel façade panels (Figure 4.10). This human powered mechanical system reinforces Frascari’s idea about the detail. The grouping of smaller details can produce a greater element and eliminate the sense of scale in a project. The Delta Shelter’s four small scale components make a system and a series of movement, creating a large scale façade detail and forming a fundamental concept of the project.

4

3 1: The occupant turns the hand cranked wheel. 2 1: The occupant turns the hand 2: A drive cranked shaft wheel. begins to turn. 1 3: 2:The A second drive shaft drive beginsshaft consequently to turn. rotates and spins the gears. 3: The second drive shaft consequently 4: Gears rotates move and pulleys spins that the move gears. all facades simultaneously. 4: Gears move pulleys that move all facades simultaneously.

Figure 4.8 Facade Movement 40 Delta Shelter

Figure 4.9 The Gears and Track Mechanism

Figure 4.10 Movement of the Facades 41 Additional Resources

Projects Chicken Point Cabin, Valley County, Idaho, United States, 2002 Art Stable, Seattle, Washington, United States, 2009 Studhorse, Winthrop, Washington, United States, 2015

References Kundig, Tom, Tom Kundig: Houses 2. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2011. Kundig, Tom, Tom Kundig: Works. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2015. Ngo, Dung, Tom Kundig: Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006.

Notes 1 Quote from Firm History, www.olsonkundig.com/fi rmhistory 2 Design concept from project portfolio on website, www.olsonkundig.com/deltashelter 3 Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings, trans. Harry Francis Mallgrave, Wolfgang Herman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1851) 4 Ibid. 5 Bruno Zevi, Architecture as Space: How to Look at Architecture, trans. Milton Gendel (New York: Horizon Press, 1974), 28. 6 Ibid, 32. 7 Marco Frascari, “The Tell-the-Tale Detail”, from Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, Kate Nesbitt.

42 43 Figure 5.1 Between Façade and Wine Storage Area

44 05 Dominus Winery | Herzog & de Meuron

Firm Brief

A building is a building. It cannot be read like a book; it doesn’t have any credits, subtitles or labels like pictures in a gallery. In that sense, we are absolutely anti-representational. The strength of our buildings is the immediate, visceral impact they have on a visitor.1 - Jacques Herzog, speaking for himself and his partner, Pierre de Meuron.

The lifelong partnership of Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron started at the early age of seven, when they met in Basel, Switzerland. The pair eventually decided to go to school at the Federal Institute of Technology Zurich. While at school they were taught by Pritzker Laureate, Aldo Rossi, who started their journey of thinking of architecture in its most visceral form. Their mutual interests eventually led them to found Herzog & de Meuron in 1978, with their head offi ce in Basel. Today their fi rm has grown from a six-person team to an international powerhouse of 40 associates and 380 collaborators spanning from Berlin, to Hong Kong, London, and New York City. The partners believe the fi rm’s success, according to de Meuron, stems from the fact that “Jacques’s strengths are my weaknesses and his weaknesses are my strengths.”2 Their close association has paid off as they won the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 2001, the RIBA Gold Medal in 2007, and the Mies Crown Hall Americas Prize in 2014. Acclaim for the fi rm’s work has come from the collaborative nature of their practice and their ability to “challenge [their] cognitive/sensual inklings in the most peculiar way.”3 As compared to architect and theorist Gottfried Semper’s architectural idea of the wall, the fi rm pushes the boundaries on conventional material usage, which is one of Herzog and de Meuron’s most vital and characteristic concerns. Exploration of facades has led them to establish a complex relationship between surface and the enclosed space; and between inside and outside.

Project Brief

Dominus Winery was established Yountville California in 1995 by new proprietor Christian Mouix. This portion of the fertile Napa Valley region had originally been cultivated in 1866, but in 1983 Mouix created a new wine, named Dominus, which quickly gained world-wide recognition. In response to this popularity, the proprietor hired Herzog & de Meuron to design a winery on the property. The building is a two-story box, 140 meters long by 25 meters wide by 9 meters high (460 feet long by 82 feet wide by 30 feet high) (Figure 5.2). The long axis faces north - south and is punctuated by two covered passage ways that separate the main functions of the building. The north gateway lines 45 1 1 2 7 7 10 2 9 3 12 4 10 4 9 312

Figure 5.2

FT Longitudinal Section

6 8

7 Legend

Storage 1 Tank Room 2 Second Floor Second Floor Arch 3 Cask Cellar (First Year) 4 Cask Cellar (Second 5 Year) 6 Laboratory 7 Offi ces 8 11 Classroom 9 5 Plant Room 10 3 Bottling Room 11 9 1 2 Cellar Master’s Room 12 12 4 Tasting Room 13 10

Figure 5.3

FT Entry Showing the Main Axis through the Winery

Figure 5.4 Floor Plans 46 Dominus Winery up with the major east-west roadway traversing the main thoroughfare of the vineyard (Figure 5.3). This portico also houses the entrances to most of the main spaces including the tasting room, wine and cast cellar, offi ces and the tank room. After walking through the portico and entering the main spaces, glass walls allows direct views into the cellar (Figure 5.4). The southern half of the building houses storerooms for cases of wine and a parking area. The climate, for most of the year in this part of California is very hot in the daytime and cold at night. In response to this signifi cant diurnal temperature shift and to create a building that is attuned to the local climate, Herzog & de Meuron created an exterior skin of native basalt stone. These stones are closely packed in wire boxes known as gabions. The gabion walls allow natural light and air to fi lter through the building during the daytime and as artifi cial lights are turned on in the evening the building appears to glow like the embers of a fi re. The continuity of the building’s fi nishes increases the ambiguity between interior and exterior spaces. This concept is applied to the building’s interior structure as it is a blend of steel and concrete. Because the steel and concrete are utilized as part of the fi ligree construction of the building, light is able to fi lter through to the interior spaces in the building. Like the wine-making that occurs on site, Dominus Winery is a “refi ned blend of science and art.”4 The building is purposefully placed so that it appears to rise directly out of the earth, accentuated by the stone facade. Herzog & de Meuron have created a building that is highly rational and at the same time seems to fuse with the earth as if it was meant to be there.

The gabion wall acts as a mediator for environmental factors. The various sizing of the basalt rocks fi lters the indirect light in differing Figure 5.5 quantities, varying based on the sizes of the stones. Environmental Relationships 47 Tectonic Principles

Ornamentation Dominus Winery combines Semper’s ideas of ornamentation with the idea that the environment’s role is to work simultaneously with the building. Gottfried Semper believed there is a connection between culture and ornamentation. His theories explore the relationship between textiles and the environment, culminating with the belief that walls “originally formed the motive for textiles and metaphorically served as a vertical spatial divider.”5 Semper extensively studied this relationship between making spaces through the dressing of the building and the resulting social separation of people within. Ornament, with respect to Dominus Winery, can be defi ned as the integration of the built environment and the building skin, where the façade is relying on the stones and its metal cages to connect the building and its structure to the landscape. The local basalt stone material utilized in the building is placed in a way that causes the façade’s structural system to become less defi nable. It is diffi cult to discern which pieces of the wall are solid and which are void, thus blurring Semper’s idea of the wall as a “spatial divider.” The gaps in this system then become just as important as the solid nature of the stones. They create a dialogue with the environment in which they act as a rain screen, while also allowing for the circulation of air and the fi ltering of light (Figure 5.5). Standing back from the façade, the patterning of solid and void in the stone walls help to “defi ne, but not dictate, environment.”6 The winery is situated against the landscape in such a way that it can be understood differently from different distances. Up close, one notices how light fi lters through the wall system and how the building becomes a buffer/gateway between one side of the winery and the mountains in the distance. Taking a step back allows one to appreciate the way Dominus Winery simply meets the ground and sky. The next realization is how the seemingly simple basalt walls are barely distinguishable from the mountains in the background (Figure 5.6). This unassuming relationship not only helps the building better assimilate with the environment, but it also helps elevate the skin as not only a beautiful motif but as a functional and rational association between nature and the man-made.

Figure 5.6 Approaching the Winery 48 Dominus Winery Construction Tectonic construction is characterized by lightweight framework, while its opposing strategy for building, stereotomic construction, is characterized by the piling or stacking of materials. Dominus Winery utilizes both tectonic and stereotomic constructions, becoming the place where our eyes go to search for both the identity of the materials and the structure.7 (Figure 5.7). The tectonic components in the building are steel columns that run along the core of the building and are integrated into the gabion steel structure of the façade. Not only do these columns help to hold up the building but they help to defi ne two of the most public spaces in the winery, the tasting room and cask cellar. These two rooms are given prominence in the winery by being “raised on a slender plinth, with abstract glazed doors refl ecting the vineyard below.”8 Elevating program in a building helps to establish a hierarchy, and because the structure is helping to defi ne the importance of the spaces, the structure is then given more importance within the building. The tectonic structure continues to the exterior portion of the building in the use of the steel gabions (Figure 5.8). The fi ligree nature of these steel cages makes them appear delicate in comparison to the stones they cradle within.

Gabion Wall System Gabion Wall System StereotomicStereotomic Construction Construction

Metal Structure Metal Structure TectonicTectonic Construction Construction

Concrete Walls & Concrete Walls & Foundation FoundationStereotomic Construction Stereotomic Construction

The structure of the building is composed of both a tectonic system consisting of Figure 5.7 a primarily metal structure of beams and columns, and stereotomic construction Tectonic vs. Stereotomic of heavy concrete fl oors and a stone gabion system. These construction systems Construction defi ne different spaces within the building.

On fi rst appearance, the stereotomic system of the building is obvious. “Three grades of stones are used”9 to create the complex façade. The largest stones are utilized in the covered outdoor areas such as the main porticos to the building. Most of the second grade of stone, the mid-sized option, is applied throughout the rest of the façade. The third, and fi nest grade of stone is employed on the outside of the cask cellar to provide a more substantial barrier against light infi ltration and more insulation for the space to minimize diurnal temperature changes. Another stereotomic system within the winery is provided in the inner concrete walls of the building. These walls help to defi ne the spaces within the winery and are located around spaces which need additional protection from environmental factors. As a whole, the blend of these construction types helps to create a building that embodies the connectivity of materials and the integration of tectonic and stereotomic constructions.

49 Figure 5.8 Tectonic Structure Utilized in the Winery

Detail Derived from the Italian word gabbione, meaning “big cage,”10 gabions are thin metal enclosures fi lled with rocks typically used to stabilize soil and prevent erosion. These cages are generally airtight to prevent water and soil from shifting and can be utilized as a retaining wall, bridge, or in the case of Dominus Winery as a mediator for environmental factors. In this project, Herzog & de Meuron establish a unique relationship between the delicate metal cages and the stones within. This relationship is established through the joining of materials, elements, and building parts in a functional and aesthetic manner.11 Like most gabion systems, the rocks inside the cage appear massive; making the wire cages appear insubstantial and unable to hold the stones contained inside. (Figure 5.9) This notion of the thin steel tectonic system holding together the heavy stereotomic one is juxtaposed by the cages fundamental purpose to create stability and structure within the façade system. The fragmentation within the system allows environmental factors to fi lter through the spaces between the stones. This idea is demonstrated in the appearance of each stone as “a fragment of an implied metal frame.”12 While the basalt rock and metal cages help to defi ne a gabion, they are an element of a greater architectural system. (Figure 5.10). The joining of these two materials creates the façade and helps to defi ne a consistent idea about how each piece of the building is clad. The dual nature of the gabion system creates a building skin that is not wholly solid nor transparent and helps to further develop the complexity of a seeming simple winery.

50 Dominus Winery

Figure 5.9 Gabion System

The gabion system is comprised of two parts, the basalt stones and the metal cage. The metal cage appears insubstantial in relation to the stones within, however the metal cage is what creates the stability and structure of the gabion system.

Figure 5.10 Gabion Construction 51 Additional Resources

Projects VitraHaus, Weil am Rhein, Germany, 2009 (47.59344, 7.61981) Elbphilharmonie Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany, 2016 (53.54133, 9.98413) de Young Museum, San Francisco, California, United States, 2005 (37.77147, 122.46867)

References Annette, Lecuyer. “Steel, Stone, and Sky”. October 1995 ed. Vol. CCV. Series 1220. London, England: The Architectural Review, (1995): 44-48. Benjamin, Muschg. “Dominus Winery, Yountville, California, 1997.” In Oberfl achen, Zurich, Switzerland: Werk,Bauen,and Wohnen, (1998): 12-21. Henry, Plummer. “Light in Japanese Architecture”, June 1995. Tokyo, Japan: U Publishing Co, (1995): 4-24.

Notes 1 Edward Lifson, Biography: Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron | The Pritzker Architecture Prize, 2001, http://www.pritzkerprize.com/2001/bio,1. 2 Lifson, 4. 3 Henry Plummer, Light in Japanese Architecture, June 1995. Tokyo, (Japan: U Publishing Co, 1995),6. 4 Annette Lecuyer, Steel, Stone, and Sky. October 1995 ed. Vol. CCV. Series 1220. London, England: The Architectural Review, 1995,48. 5 Harry Francis Mallgrave, “The Animate Brain: Schinkel, Botticher, and Semper.” In The Architect’s Brain: Neuroscience, Creativity, and Architecture. Chicester, United Kingdom: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010, 69. 6 Raymond Ryan, “Memories of Light, Curtain, and Stone.” In Architecture and Urbanism. Vol. 4. Series 331. Tokyo, Japan: U Publishing Co, 1998,24-26. 7 Carles Vallhonrat. “Tectonics Considered.” Perspecta, vol. 24, 1988, 134. 8 Lecuyer, 46. 9 Ibid, 47. 10 “Gabion.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed October 23, 2017. https://www.merriam-webster.com/ dictionary/gabion. 11 Marco Frascari. “The Tell-the-Tale Detail.” In Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology of architectural theory: 1965-1995, New York City, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996),3. 12 Raymond, Ryan, “Memories of Light, Curtain, and Stone.” In Architecture and Urbanism. Vol. 4. Series 331. Tokyo, Japan: U Publishing Co, 1998,26.

52 53 Figure 6.1 View Upon First Entering the Site from the Main Gate

54 06 Komyo-Ji Temple | Tadao Ando & Associates

Architect Brief

Tadao Ando is a Japanese, self-taught architect who spent the beginning of his career as a truck driver and boxer before transitioning to the practice of architecture. During an interview, Ando reminds us of his childhood and how he translated his early career into architecture.

When I was 15 years old I was a professional boxer. I fought about a dozen professional fi ghts. At the same time designing architecture is also a battle, you must go forward, always one step ahead, you have to go forward, otherwise you lose.1

The battle that Ando refers to is evident in his design work. Most of Ando’s projects refl ect “the Zen state of mind inherent in traditional Japanese culture, which is characterized as being quiet, distant, clear, and poetic.”2 Further on in his career, his relationships and collaborations with renowned architects such as Le Corbusier, Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Louis Kahn inspired him to fi nally establish his own design fi rm, Tadao Ando Architect & Associates, in 1968. When studying Ando’s work, a few elements stand out, specifi cally “his unparalleled work with concrete, his sensitive treatment of natural light, and his strong engagement with nature.”3 His architecture reduces even the most complex buildings to simple and clean concepts.

Project Brief

The historic Komyo-ji temple, a 250-year-old Pure Land Buddhist temple, is nestled in the foothills of a mountainous region of south-western Japan in the city of Saijo. The city is relatively small, but the site of the temple serves as the entrance to the highest mountain range in western Japan. Because it is positioned at the base of the mountains, the city of Saijo is abundant with fresh mountain water and a vast network of streams and rivers feed and sustain the population and wildlife of the city. The temple itself originated in the Edo Period (c. 1603 to 1868) but by the 21st century it was no longer structurally sound nor did it fi t the needs of its patrons and monks. The temple committee convened and, in 2001, Tadao Ando completed the redesign and construction of a new structure. When Ando took on the project, there were not many requirements given by the client. The temple committee explained that they wanted the new temple to be a place where “people will come to gather together, a temple that is open to the community,”4 and a facility which would relate to the age-old traditions of Edo Architecture. The temple was also required to have a connection to the existing guest halls and priests living quarters (Figure 6.2). 55 Figure 6.2 Building Section

8

6 4,500 mm 14'-9"

7 8'-10"

345 2,700 mm

1 1725 mm 1,800 mm 1,800 mm 1,800 mm 1,800 mm 1,800 mm 1725 mm 1625 mm 53'-2”

5'-8" 5'-11" 5'-11" 5'-11" 5'-11" 5'-11" 5'-8" 5'-4" 16,200 mm 150 mm 0'-6" 4,500 mm 14'-9"

240 mm 420 mm 0’-9.5” 1'-4" Legend 420 mm 420 1'-4"

2 mm 1,800 5'-11" Corridor 1 Outer Chamber 2 Left Chamber 3 Right Chamber 4 Inner Sanctum 5 4,500 mm 14'-9" Ante Room 6 Bridge to Main Hall 7 1 Egress Path 8

150 mm 300 mm 0'-6" 1'-0" 1,800 mm 2,700 mm 900 mm 900 mm 1,800 mm 1,800 mm 1,800 mm 1,800 mm 5'-11" 8'-10" 3'-0" 3'-0” 5'-11" 5'-11" 5'-11" 5'-11" 4,500 mm 3,600 mm 3,600 mm 4,500 mm 14'-9" 11'-10" 11'-10" 14'-9" N 16,200 mm 53'-2” Figure 6.3 Floor Plan 56 Komyo-Ji Temple In the development of the project, Ando utilized the natural resources of Saijo and later stated that this project “allowed [him] to rediscover and gain a new awareness of the origins of [his] architectural methods.”5 He captured spring water from a nearby stream and utilized this element to not only bind the new temple structure within the existing site, but also to connect the entire complex to the fabric of the city. The new building is enveloped by a serene pool of water, connecting to the existing structures on the site using two small bridges (Figure 6.3). The position of the structure at the center of the pool leads to a mirror-like refl ection of the temple’s activities within and evokes wonder and mysticism for the patrons (Figure 6.1).6 This project had a clear desire to respect the environment and history of the preceding structure, which is evident in Ando’s material choices. He highlights the local landscape by using wood as a primary construction medium instead of concrete, his signature building material. Ando sought to recognize and appreciate wood as a traditional Japanese material in Komyo-ji, but he also wanted to integrate the history of the site with a more contemporary take on material technology.7 He decided to build the entire temple using laminated timber, weaving and intertwining them to allow each structural member to support the tension or force created by another, similar to how a community supports one

6

5

4

1 7 3

Legend 2

1 Main Building 9 2 Entrance 8 3 Guest Hall 4 Worship Hall 5 Courtyard 6 Private Living 7 Parking 8 Gate 9 Bell Tower

N Figure 6.4 Site Plan 57 Figure 6.5 Detailed View of Lattice Framework

58 Komyo-Ji Temple another (Figure 6.4). Due to the strength of laminated timber, Ando could use many thin, but long beams to create delicacy in the structural system. He also created a latticed façade with varying openings, which transforms the interior space by allowing glimpses of sunlight to shine in along with refl ections from the water, exposing the interior to the outside, blending the two (Figure 6.5). The qualities of the temple create an atmosphere built on light, material, and water, which speaks to the visitor.8 After dark, a reversal takes place where the life inside the building is refl ected onto the clear waters outside, signaling to the community that they too are welcome to join.

Figure 6.6 The Ceremonial Hearth

Tectonic Principles

Anatomy The development of Komyo-Ji temple fi rst necessitated the earth to be excavated to create the large refl ection pond fi lled with spring water from surrounding Saijo, Japan.

The water surrounding the temple is serene yet at the same time dynamic. It quietly refl ects the wooden structure, extending the height of the temple and, at the same time, refl ecting the ever- changing light which dances on the monolithic concrete walls of the administrative buildings of the temple compound.9

The shrine was built at the center of the refl ection pond, appearing as though it fl oats on the water. The shrine serves as a gathering spot for communal events and prayer (Figure 6.6). Around the shrine, Ando designed a large hall. The framework of the structure begins with the placement of four columns at every corner, each of which is also composed of four smaller wood component columns that have been fastened together (Figure 6.7). The system of columns supports a framework of beams. The beams gradually move out from the columns, stacked and intricately woven upon each other. The

59 1. Earthwork 4. Inner Volume 1: Earthwork 4: Inner Volume The central shrine is highlighted by a wooden The temple sits on a concrete pad surroundedThe temple sits on a concrete pad The central shrine by a refl ecting pool. interior partition wall. surrounded by a reflecting pool. wooden interior p

2. Hearth 5. Cladding | Exter 2: Hearth The temples central shrine serves as the 5: Cladding | Exterior Shell The exterior skin is The temple’s central shrine serves as the main focus for visitors. The exterior skin is made of wooden members main focus for visitors. that are spaced tightly together as they workmembers to that are fi lter in the natural light. together as they w natural light.

3. Framework 6. Roof

3: Framework 6: Roof A network of glulam columns and beams support the A relatively fl at wooden roof surrounding a centralFigure skylight 6.7 roof and facade of the structure. further highlights the complexities of glulam construction and protects the patrons inside. Anatomy Figure 6.7 Anatomy

60 Komyo-Ji Temple three interlocking layers of beams within the ceiling of the project support the façade and roof. The central shrine is further emphasized by an inner area of tatami mats, surrounded by a pair of enclosing envelopes. The inner wrapping is frosted glass to provide an unobtrusive barrier for the sacred space within. The exterior envelope, which creates the temple’s facades, is clad with a wooden lattice structure. Frosted glass has been inserted into openings of the lattice, which protects patrons from distractions, but still transmits the qualities of light sought by Ando. Ando said that this confi guration of enclosure “results in an indeterminate demarcation between interior and exterior. Light fi lters through the latticed exterior wall to fi ll the interior with soft, natural illumination. It is a bright, open, and ceremonious space.”10 The temple is topped with a wooden roof that lightly touches the rest of the building, protecting those within from the natural elements. The central shrine contains a skylight that mimics the surrounding buildings and allows additional light into the main space.

Detail Ando takes full advantage of the surrounding mountains at Komyo-Ji by capturing mountain water from the streams and rivers that run through the city. By creating the refl ection pool, Ando creates an image of a building that gently fl oats on the water. Although it would appear that the water is binding the site together, its true purpose is to highlight the temple as a separate element from the rest of the site. Ando furthers this disconnect by making other structures out of a heavy monolithic concrete which also helps visitors focus on the wooden temple design (Figure 6.8).

Figure 6.8 Adjacent Monolithic Concrete Buildings 61 Upon entering the complex, visitors quickly realize that there is no direct entry to the temple. To access the temple, visitors must fi rst enter the prayer hall of the community building. From the prayer hall visitors are led to the only public entrance to the temple: a small wooden footbridge that quietly connects the main hall to the surrounding context (Figure 6.9). This bridge serves as a formal joint as it connects the main building with the surrounding buildings on the site. In “The Tell-the-Tale Detail,” late architect and educator Marco Frascari states, “the art of detailing is really the joining of materials, elements, components, and building parts in a functional and aesthetic manner.”11 This joining of buildings can be seen in how Ando uses the spring fed pond to create a separation with the existing site and then further accentuates the joinery of the site by using the wooden bridge where visitors cross this body of water to enter.

Visitor Entry Sequence

1 Enter through main gate

2 Walk around the site and through the bell tower.

3 Enter the guest hall

4 Take the bridge to the main temple.

Bridge 4 Main Temple

Reflection Pool

3 2 Figure 6.9 1 The Bridge as an Entry Detail Intersection Traditional Buddhist architecture has always relied on wood in its many forms as a primary building material for its temples. During the material selection process, Ando decided to respect tradition and use a more modern interpretation of the age-old building technique.

In my view, the essence of traditional Japanese wooden architecture is “assembly.”. A tremendous number of wooden parts are cut for a single building, and the building takes shape as these parts are assembled and fi tted together…I wanted to create a space that would return to the origins of wooden architecture.12

62 Komyo-Ji Temple Ando accomplishes this by using a contemporary building material called laminated timber (Figure 6.10). Laminated timber, or glulam, is an effective building material; its strength derives from the fact that “the material itself is made up by layering smaller parts […] it seemed especially appropriate to the intent of this design.”13 Ando starts by placing sixteen large columns in sets of four inside the main temple. By creating a crisscrossing network of beams on top of the columns, the structural members rely on one another to distribute force, through complex geometry, holding up the temple’s façade and roof (Figure 6.11). Professor and architectural historian Eduard Sekler published a paper examining the relationship between construction and structure in which he writes:

To achieve a desired end in building we may rely on the accumulated strength and mass of assembled materials. This will be a constructional effort. But with a structural change, the same end may be achieved in a more elegant fashion. A form may emerge that is a more direct result of, or reply to, the forces at work.14

The resulting form, according to Sekler, is a direct result of Ando’s constructional effort in making an open fl oor plan with stronger members, but using an elegant system. In this design, Ando constantly blurs the line between respecting an age-old building technique with something that is more modern and reliable, intersecting different methods to create a place that was appropriate for the client.

Figure 6.10 Three layers of overlapped beams are Glulam Beam to Column supported by a cluster of four columns. Connection 63 Additional Resources

Projects Modern Art Museum, Fort Worth, Texas, United States, 2002 Church on the Water, Tomanmu, Hokkaido, Japan, 1988 Church of the Light, Ibaraki, Osaka, Japan, 1989 Punta della Dogana, Venice, Italy, 2009

References Keskeys, Paul. “Tadao Ando: “Creation Is Fighting ... Designing Architecture Is a Battle”. In Architizer.2017. Silloway, Kari. “Komyo-ji Temple by Tadao Ando,” In Ehime Japan, 2017. Donahue, Thomas. “A Temple Reborn,” In Architecture and Urbanism, 189-193. 2003. Andō, Tadao, Kenneth Frampton, and Massimo Vignelli. Light and water. In Basel: Birkhäuser, 2003.

Notes 1 Keskeys, Paul. “Tadao Ando: “Creation Is Fighting ... Designing Architecture Is a Battle”. In Architizer. 2017. 2 Aleph, Faena. “The 7 Principles of Zen Applied to Design,” In Simplicity and elegance, 2013. 3 Allen, Katherine, Patrick Lynch, Thomas Musca, Sabrina Syed, AD Editorial Team, Suneet Zishan Langar, Sabrina Santos, Luke Fiederer, James Taylor-Foster, Karissa Rosenfi eld, and Rory Stott. “Spotlight: Tadao Ando.” In ArchDaily. 2017. 4 Silloway, Kari. “Komyo-ji Temple by Tadao Ando,” In Ehime Japan, 2017. 5 Co, Francesco Dal. “Tadao Ando,” Phaidon Press Limited, 1995. 6 Donahue, Thomas. “A Temple Reborn,” In Architecture and Urbanism, 189-193. 2003. 7 Ibid.,194. 8 Crosbie, Michael. “Houses of God: Religious Architecture for a New Millenium” New York: Watson- Guptill Publications, 174-179. 2006. 9 Silloway, “Komyo-ji Temple by Tadao Ando. 10 Donahue, “A Temple Reborn,” 192. 11 Marco Frascari, “The Tell-the-Tale Detail,” in Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, ed. Kate Nesbitt (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 500. 12 Donahue, “A Temple Reborn,” 191. 13 Ibid., 192. 14 Sekler, Eduard. “Structure, Construction, Tectonics,” In Structure in Art and Science, edited by Gyorgy Kepes, 89. New York: Braziller, 1965.

64 Figure 6.11 Assembly of the Framework

65 Figure 7.1 Nest We Grow Project and Team

66 07 Nest We Grow | Kengo Kuma and Associates + College of Environmental Design at UC Berkeley

Architect Brief

Kengo Kuma, born in Kanagawa, Japan in 1954, is one of the most prominent Japanese architects of our time. Kuma graduated from the University of Tokyo in 1979 and continued his studies at Columbia University in NYC, where he published his fi rst book entitled 10 houses as an initial attempt to express his “non-style” architecture.1 Then in 1990, he established his own offi ce, Kengo Kuma and Associates, which emphasizes the revitalization of traditional Japanese values, such as the essential consciousness and science of the body, blended poetically with modern technological advancements. His efforts have led to many innovative uses of conventional Japanese materials in the modern technological era. Kuma has a strong desire to showcase how architecture can dissolve into an integral part of its surrounding to achieve a “one whole entity” mentality.2 As such, instead of the typical approach to design, which treats architecture as an object, Kuma aims to design projects that create a harmonious connection between architecture and nature. He draws his inspiration from the surrounding context of the project while also placing a strong focus on material selection and the manipulation of light. This philosophical approach, which ties together the body and architecture is seen throughout his many projects and it is this attention to detail, when combined with various technological, philosophical and psychological methods that elevates Kuma’s design to architectural poetry. Kuma has stated that:

Space as the basic matter for architecture is changing. Architecture no longer deals with enclosed space or that of a city and its buildings but it also deals with psychological, virtual, or electronic space. I would highlight this as something we could call and approach as ‘pure’ architecture.3

Project Brief

The latest technological advancements can often take precedence over traditional techniques, which have been fi ne-tuned by centuries of craftsmen. It is important to note, however, that neither excludes the other. Instead it is the combination of innovative technology and local tradition which helps promote the evolution of architecture.4 Such ideas are prominent in ‘Nest We Grow’, a collaborative endeavor between Kengo Kuma & Associates and a group of students from the University of California Berkeley. In 2014, Kuma mentored the students who were participating in a design/build studio that sought to create a structure that both celebrates the local community through renewable building methods and serves as a food orientated hub.5 Located in the Memu Meadows Center of Hokkaido, Japan, Nest We Grow pays 67 tribute to both the Japanese agricultural landscape and the traditional wood frame construction style of this area (Figure 7.2).6 With an emphasis on environmental consciousness, the project acknowledges all the necessary steps needed to harvest food. The frame of the Nest serves a multimodal purpose allowing the local community to harvest, store, prepare, compose and even consume food throughout the year (Figure 7.3).7 Overall, the building serves as a platform to reshape the community’s knowledge about food harvest and, in return, strengthen the community. This project, which was honored with the top award in the 4th Annual LIXIL International Design-Build Competition, was a collaborative effort in which Kuma was able to infl uence the use of “natural materials to create airy, open rooms fi lled with sunlight” in order to achieve a festive relationship between food and the community and as a way to honor the community and the surrounding landscape.8

Ground Level Plan Second Level Plan

Third Level Plan Fourth Level Plan

N Figure 7.2 Floor Plans 68 Nest We Grow

Figure 7.3 Section

Building Section

Tectonic Principles

Anatomy Nest We Grow is a rigid -timber frame, designed to both resemble a forest and to pay homage to traditional Japanese structures. Additionally, the construction palette was comprised of local materials, such as wood and straw bale to refl ect the natural surroundings of the project’s site (Figure 7.4). The ground level of the building utilizes rammed earth walls and straw bale construction to compose a solid base that wraps around a framework of nine columns. These nine columns, made of composite timber, are anchored with concrete footings to the earth. Each of these nine columns are composed of four smaller members, which are attached together using steel plates. The real strength of this structure is developed in the moment connections established between the columns and the sets of paired beams that form the structure of the building’s fl oors (see detail analysis below) (Figure 7.5). This fl oor system as a whole helps defi ne the levels of the project while also offering resistance to lateral loads on the building. In addition to these beams, the fi rst fl oor utilizes steel cross bracing connection points within the timber frame and the upper levels contain catwalks, which help to stabilize the frame. At the perimeter the framework, the façade’s membrane is hung off the periphery of the grid of beams. The bottom of this façade system then hovers above the rammed earth construction, giving the illusion that the upper levels of the Nest fl oat above the base. The enclosing membrane is made up of translucent plastic corrugated sheets that protect the interior spaces from elements such as harsh northwestern winds.9 In addition, the plastic allows for penetration of light, which is essential for the growing of crops inside the building, and functions to stabilize the interior temperature through the harsh winters, thus extending the seasonal usability of the Nest.

69 1: Earthwork | Foundation 4: Framework | Lateral Bracing Rammed earth wall and straw bale Cross-bracing is added to the lower level and construction act as the foundation of the catwalks are added to the upper layers to structure. achieve stronger lateral bracing.

2: Framework | Columns 5: Framework | Beams Located at the heart of the project are 9 timber composite Beams then run parallel to the columns in moment columns anchored in concrete footings. connections to create the structure of the project.

3: Framework | Beams 6: Enclosure Beams then run parallel to the columns in moment The fl oating framework is then enclosed with corrugated connections to create the structure of the project. plastics which protects the interior from the elements. Figure 7.4 Anatomy 70 Nest We Grow

Figure 7.5 The gathering of the nest

Space Starting early in the development process, the goal for the project team was to sculpt a design that highlighted the process of cultivating food. This effort is made apparent in the relationships between space, construction and function found in the building. Karl Botticher, a German professor in architectural tectonics, promotes a similar theory in which he states that the needs of the inhabitant signifi cantly infl uence the construction of space. He states that “the fi rst matter that has to be dealt with in our examination is the concept that lies behind the spatial organization of the building.”10 Nest we grow shows a great understanding of this spatial concept while also adding to the spiritual connection to the surrounding landscape.

Figure 7.6 Interior/Exterior relationship 71 The project itself promotes the ability to grow, harvest, store, cook, eat, compose, interconnect and learn from community participation (Figure 7.6). At the ground level the Nest serves a more intimate function in which the interior space is enclosed by a solid foundation of rammed earth walls, which serve to not only protect the inhabitants from exterior conditions but also provided an ideal space to store, prepare, and grow food (Figure 7.7). The foundation walls are essential for this space because embedded inside of the foundation walls are ample storage options and also the kitchen utilities that allow for food to be cooked. As we proceed up to the next level of the building, utilizing stairs protruding from the foundation walls, we arrive at the “hearth” of the project: a central fi replace. This element and the space in which it resides, creates the perfect stage for people to gather to share stories and knowledge. It sits in a void that is expressed in the wooden framework. The purpose of this element is to strengthen the relationship with the surrounding landscape while enjoying the sense of community within the heart of the nest.

Figure 7.7 Food preparation area 72 Nest We Grow The upper levels of the Nest then contain a combination of exposure and enclosure that is greatly dependent on the membrane of the building. The membrane of this project is composed of translucent plastic panels which protect the user from environmental conditions. Some of these panels located on the membrane and roof are designed to slide to allow sunlight and air to fl ow into the building. These areas of the building are for harvesting and growing food. In addition, the sloped roof of the structure is able to harvest rain water and snow. As the roof collects water, it distributes it to reservoirs located in the foundation walls. From there the water is used to water the plants throughout the nest. This project is designed primarily as a cycle, causing its form to be derived from the choreography of spaces that responds to the needs of the community and giving life to the “Nest.”

Detail As mentioned in the previous section, the structural system of Nest We Grow is bound together by a repeated moment connection between the primary structural compound columns and paired system of beams, creating a rigid wooden frame. This unique connection becomes a catalyst for the rest of the project; the critical detail is repeated and creates an aesthetically pleasing moment that can be described as art (Figure 7.8). In his essay “The Tell-the-Tale Detail,” architect and educator Marco Frascari wrote:

Architecture is an art because it is interested not only in the original need of shelter but also in putting together spaces and materials in a meaningful manner. This occurs through formal and actual joints. The joint, that is the fertile detail, is the place where both the construction and the construing of architecture take place.11

The connection begins by bundling together four individual 155 x 155 millimeter (6 x 6 inches) glulam component columns that make up each of the nine compound columns (Figure 7.9). Each component column contains two s-shaped notches, dimensioned at 305 x 75 x 255 millimeters (12 x 3 x 10 inches) that are alternated 90 degrees from the center, so that when bundled together, the notches are adjacent, creating a place in which the beams can reside. The notches occur at each fl oor of the structure, with four notches total per component column. Once the smaller columns are orientated correctly, two s-shaped steel plates are used within the notches to assemble the bundled columns. The paired beams are then introduced to the system, sitting in the notches in the columns and creating a fl ush fi nish for the structural system. The repetition of this moment connection creates a strong grid from which the rest of the structure is hung. Kengo Kuma is a master for his innovation in the “union of construction” with poetic design and attention to the smallest detail, which expresses not only the characteristics of materials but the strength of Japanese tradition.12

Moment Connection Detail

155x150 millimeter mm (6x6 6x6 (inches) in)

Steel Plate Plate (Typ. (Typ. 2) 2)

300x75x250300 x 75 x 250 millimeter mm (12x3x10 in) Notch (12 x 3 x (Typ.10 inches) 2) Notch (Typ. 2)

7575x250 x 250 millimeter mm (3x10 (3 x 10 in) inches) Glulam Larch Beam (Typ.4) Figure 7.8 Glulam Larch Beam M Moment Connection Diagram 73 Figure 7.9 Moment Connection Frame

74 Figure 7.10 Lantern in the Night

75 Additional Resources

Projects Yusuhara Wooden Bridge Museum Technical Information Horai Onsen Bath House Japan House São Paulo

References Shaking the Foundations: Japanese Architects in Dialogue, Christopher Knabe Material Immaterial: The New Work of Kengo Kuma, Botond Bognar Kengo Kuma: Complete Works, Kenneth Frampton

Notes 1 Knabe, Christopher, Joerg Rainer. Noennig, and Wilhelm Klauser. “Kengo Kuma,” Shaking the foundations: Japanese architects in dialogue. (Munich: Prestel, 1999), 36-45. 2 Bognár, Botond. Beyond the bubble: the new Japanese architecture. (London: Phaidon, 2008), 202- 218 . 3 Knabe, Christopher, Rainer. Noennig, and Klauser. “Kengo Kuma,” 36-45. 4 Hübsch, Heinrich. “The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building with Regard to Their Application to Our Present Way of Building.” In what style should we build?: the German debate on architectural style. (Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1992), 147- 167. 5 “Nest We Grow / College of Environmental Design UC Berkeley Kengo Kuma & Associates.” ArchDaily. January 28, 2015. http://www.archdaily.com/592660/nest-we-grow-college-of- environmental-design-uc-berkeley-kengo-kuma-and-associates 6 Harmon, Maris, “Nesting Instincts: In Japan, Cal Architectural Students Reinvent the Community Center.” UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design California magazine. https://ced.berkeley. edu/events-media/news/nesting-instincts-in-japan-cal-architectural-students-reinvent-the- communit. 7 “Revisiting Memu Meadows - Architecture - Domus.” Domusweb.it. https://www.domusweb.it/en/ architecture/2015/01/15/nest_we_grow.html. 8 “Kengo Kuma.” Walter Knoll. https://www.walterknoll.de/en/designer/kengo-kuma 9 Harmon, Maris, “Nest We Grow / College of Environmental Design UC Berkeley + Kengo Kuma & Associates.” 10 Bӧtticher, Karl. “Excerpts from Die Tektonik Der Hellenen.” Translated by Lynnette Widder. In Otto Wagner, Adolf Loos, and the Road to Modern Architecture, edited by Werner Oechslin, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 188-97. 11 Frascari, Marco. “The Tell-the-Tale Detail.” In Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, edited by Kate Nesbitt, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 500-14. 12 Knabe, Christopher, Rainer. Noennig, and Klauser. “Kengo Kuma,” 36-45.

76 77 Figure 8.1 View from the Ocean 78 08 Sea Ranch Condominium One | MLTW

Firm Brief

The Berkeley, California based fi rm of MLTW (Charles Moore, Donlyn Lyndon, William Turnbull, Richard Whitaker) was founded by the partners in 1962, existing for only eight years before disbanding in 1970. Moore, Lyndon, and Turnbull all met while studying architecture at Princeton University. Whitaker, a faculty member at the University of California in Berkley, was introduced to the group when they were hired to teach at the university. As faculty members, the group wanted to design buildings that they could utilize for lessons in their classes. Creating eloquent relationships between buildings and their surroundings was one of the fi rm’s aspirations and an attribute that the group wanted to pass onto their students. It is here that the link between the fi rm’s principles and the partner’s teaching philosophies, start to overlap. After the separation of the partnership, Moore and Turnbull started their own fi rms and continued to focus their careers in the professional world while Lyndon and Whitaker chose to return to academia to focus on teaching. MLTW referred elements of their design to the human body and emphasized the importance of people within their projects. Interaction with the structure and generating human connections within the spaces was signifi cant to them. The fi rm molded spaces that allowed for diverse use and produced confi dence in ownership.1 Charles Moore stated, in the 1977 work Body, Memory, and Architecture, “…that the architect should be devoted to the “’task of understanding the potential of a place and the possibility of dwelling in it, of experiencing it with all the senses, of feeling it and remembering it and making it the center of a whole world.’”2

Project Brief

Sea Ranch Condominium One was constructed in 1965 in Sea Ranch, California and serves primarily as vacation and weekend houses for the owners of its ten units (Figure 8.1). Each unit is about 1,000 square feet (93 square meters) and consists of one bedroom, one and a half bathrooms, a kitchen, and sitting areas. All the units share a similar layout, but no two are analogous. The project’s site and environmental conditions proved to be a concern for the architects. Lawrence Halprin, the landscape architect on the project, had to overcome a number of varying slopes in the topography. While challenging, this landform also provided ample design opportunities. The steeper slopes of the site were used to generate views for the units and the fl atter portions were utilized to introduce vehicles onto the site, as well as to host a car courtyard.

79 Figure 8.2 Entrance to the Community Courtyard

Unit 9

Car Courtyard

6 Cars

Unit 8 Elect

Unit 7 Laundry 4 Cars

Unit 6

Courtyard Unit 10

Unit 1

Unit 5 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 2 N

Figure 8.3 0 4 8 16 Plan of the Ten Units 80 Sea Ranch Condominium One Outdoor spaces were created through careful arrangement of the units, fi rst studied by the architects using simple sugar cubes. In the fi nal confi guration, there are two courtyard spaces. One is a community space for the residents and the other is the car courtyard (Figure 8.2). The community aspect was important to the architects, so they created an exterior space that linked all the units implying a communal use. “In their 1974 book The Place of Houses, the architects confessed that ‘the condominium building was the initial attempt to make a community.’”3 Although community was the focus, privacy also needed to be addressed for the residents. Privacy played an important role in this project because the saddlebag: piece that is units were placed so close together. The units were arranged, so each does not have a direct view into extended at the sides with another. In order to allow the units to have both a view and privacy, Saddlebags are introduced to the outshots, lean-tos units, which create sunlit spaces in-between the units with seating for the owners to have a view of the outshot: the extension of a sea. building under a lean-to roof The design of Sea Ranch creates a composition in which ten separate living units act and feel like a cohesive composition, unifi ed by a single sloping roof plane (Figure 8.3). The angle of the shed roof of the structure also serves to obstruct the harsh winds coming off the ocean. Additionally, a hedgerow was fashioned on the Northeast side of the condominiums to help control the robust wind gusts that inundate the site. On the interior, the kitchen and bathrooms are stacked in a wooden enclosure that visually links aedicule: an opening such the fi rst and second level of each unit (Figure 8.4). Unlike these service spaces, the rest of the interior is as a door or a window, organized to accentuate the living areas. Seven out of the ten units also contain a two-story aedicule that framed by columns on either side, and a pediment above lofts the sleeping area to the second level on a four-post structure. Beneath the lofted bedroom, there are sitting pits, which provide a central hearth and fi replace for the home.

Figure 8.4 Unit 1 Section Perspective of a Unit 81 Tectonic Principles

Place In Twenty-Five Buildings Every Architect Should Understand, author Simon Unwin, explains that, “[t] he avowed aim of the architects [of Sea Ranch Condominium One] was to identify a place in a direct and simple way, without extravagance or show, in harmony with surrounding conditions.”4 Here, Unwin outlines the architects’ plan to contextualize Sea Ranch. They achieved this feat by applying the concept of a fi shing village to the layout.5 Fishing villages are typically laid out to have each unit closely knit to the others and oriented in relation to the surrounding water or landscape, just as the units are in Sea Ranch Condominium One. MLTW joined the units to form a simple shared space and create a community impression that is commonly represented in the precedent of the villages. Kenneth Frampton, architectural theorist and author of Studies in Tectonic Culture, stated, “Situated at the interface of culture and nature, building is as much about the ground as it is about the built form.”6 He thought that it was important that architecture took into consideration the earth and the impact the characteristics of the site can have on the structures it receives. At Sea Ranch, Halprin focused on preserving the existing landscape. “One of Halprin’s precepts for the whole development was that it should damage the land and its appearance as little as possible.”, stated Unwin.7 In order to try and adhere to that, the building’s form follows the topography by stepping the units down the slope (Figure 8.5). The columns rest on concrete foundations and the system varies to conform to the slope of the site (Figure 8.6).

Figure 8.5 Slope of the Site in Contrast with the Building 82 Sea Ranch Condominium One

Figure 8.6 Relationship of Building Structure and Site

Tectonic In Studies in Tectonic Culture, Frampton writes:

Semper would classify the building crafts into two fundamental procedures: the tectonics of the frame, in which lightweight, linear components are assembled so as to encompass a spatial matrix, and the stereotomics of the earthwork, wherein mass and volume are conjointly formed through the repetitious piling up of heavyweight elements.8

Per Frampton’s defi nition, the skeletal frame structure of Sea Ranch Condominium One is accurately a tectonic construction. The building is supported by a heavy timber structure that employs post-and-beam construction principles and which is clad with redwood panels harvested from the surrounding forest. According to Lyndon, “The timber framing of local barns informed the way the condominium was built…” (Figure 8.7).9 Six columns were placed along the edge of the structure, but girt: a horizontal structural the four columns that would typically be positioned in the corners were shifted inward, allowing the member in a framed wall corners to be open (Figure 8.8). Girts that support each other through cantilever, were then bolted to the exterior face of the columns. Bracing is connected between the girts and columns to solidify the structure against lateral forces, such as earthquakes and wind. The redwood panels are attached to the exterior of the wood frame in a vertical orientation and serve as a fi nish material for the external facades. Eduard Sekler, architectural historian and author of Structure, Construction, Tectonics, stated, “Thus structure, the intangible concept, is realized through construction and given visual expression through tectonics.”10

10x10 in (25 x 25 cm) 4x10 in (10x25 cm) 4x4 in (10x10 cm) Figure 8.7 Douglas Fir Columns Douglas Fir Girtsa Douglas Fir Bracing Timber Frame Construction

83 Figure 8.8 Column Receded from the Corner

Metal plates bond the columns to the concrete foundation that supports them. The angles of the connecting members in the rest of the structural system, however, varied, so a connector was developed for the bracing that could account for the variation. The connector was a 36 inch (91 cm) metal disk that could be manipulated on site, accommodating any angles required during construction. After being manipulated, it was then nailed to the structure to create stable connections between the members. The exterior cladding utilized a tongue and groove profi le to increase stability while also being nailed to the structure.

Anatomy

Throughout all phases of society the hearth formed that sacred focus around which the whole took order and shape. It is the fi rst and most important, the moral element of architecture. Around it were grouped the three other elements: the roof, the enclosure, and the mound, the protecting negations or defenders of the hearth’s fl ame against the three hostile elements of nature.11 - Gottfried Semper, The Four Elements and Other Writings, 2010

The earthwork of the Sea Ranch Condominium One consists of drilled holes for the foundation and groundwork for a concrete slab (Figure 8.9). The construction of this project began with the foundation system, anchored into the earth with 12 inch (30.5 cm) piers, establishing the connection between the site and foundation. The piers towards the middle of the building receive wooden posts that then attach to the fl oor framing underneath the units. The four outer columns of each unit pierce through the wood frame and attach to the piers at grade. The hearth of each unit, positioned underneath either an aedicule or mezzanine, contains a sitting pit and a fi replace, which ¬symbolize the “heart” of the unit and unify the distinct spaces of the residence. “The space under the sleeping platforms is cozy and tight compared to the rest of the unit, and this feeling is heightened by the inclusion of [the] fi re place,”12 wrote architect, William Turnbull, Jr. in Global Architecture Detail (Figure 8.10).

84 Sea Ranch Condominium One

1. Eart 4. Fr The site The u to avoid struct overcom of col

1: Earthwork 4: Framework The site is lightly touched, to avoid damage The units are a heavy timber structure, that are and to overcome the slope variation. constructed of columns, girts, and bracing.

2. F 5. En The Redw conn the ex the t const conc

2: Foundation System 5: Enclosure | Cladding The piers puncture the earth to connect the Redwood panels are bolted on the exterior of units to the site and the three lower units the structure to construct the facade. contain concrete slabs.

3. H 6. Ro Und Skylig whe the st are locatio

3: Hearth 6: Roof Underneath the aedicule is where the heart of Skylights are utilized to highlight the structure the units is located. and portray the location of the hearths. Figure 8.9 Anatomy 85 A framework of heavy timber surrounds the hearth and defi nes the space of the living unit. The columns of this framework differ in height, creating the slope in the roof system. Vertical redwood panels, as mentioned in a previous section, make up the primary enclosure system of Sea Ranch and are located on the exterior surface of the framework. Overhead, skylights puncture the roof at signifi cant points, including directly above the aedicule signifying the hearth’s location. At the highest point of the roof’s slope, skylights are also centered on the columns below to celebrate the structure of Sea Ranch.

Figure 8.10 Unit Nine Aedicule and Sitting Pit

86 Sea Ranch Condominium One Additional Resources

Projects Lawrence House, Sea Ranch, California, 1966 Budge House, Healdsburg, California, 1966 Moore House, New Haven, Connecticut, 1967

References Lyndon, Donlyn. “The Sea Ranch: Qualifi ed Vernacular.” Journal of Architectural Education 63, no. 1 (2009): 81-89. Turnbull, Jr, William. Global Architecture Detail. The Sea Ranch Condominium. 3rd ed. Tokyo, Japan: A.D.A EDITA, 1963-69. Unwin, Simon. “Condominium One, the Sea Ranch.” In Twenty-Five Buildings Every Architect Should Understand. second ed., 153. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015.

Notes 1 San Francisco Museum of Modern Art, “MLTW” (2017) 2 Charles Moore and Kent Bloomer, In Body, Memory, and Architecture (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977), 138 3 Simon Unwin, Twenty-Five Buildings Every Architect Should Understand (New York: Routledge, 2015), 155 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid. 6 Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2001), 27 7 Unwin, Twenty-Five Buildings Every Architect Should Understand, 156 8 Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, 5 9 Donlyn Lyndon, Journal of Architectural Education (2009), 84 10 Eduard Sekler, In Structure in Art and Science, Edited by Kepes (New York: Braziller, 1965), 4 11 Gottfried Semper, In The Four Elements and Other Writings, edited by Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 102 12 William Turnbull, Jr., Global Architecture Detail (Tokyo: A.D.A EDITA, 1963-69), 5

87 Figure 9.1 Interior View of Wall and Roof Construction 88 09 Shelter for Roman Ruins | Peter Zumthor

Firm Brief

As a cabinetmaker’s son, Peter Zumthor had an early understanding of craft and materials. He took his experience and turned it into an education fi rst in his hometown and later as an exchange student studying industrial design and architecture at Pratt Institute in New York. Zumthor fi rst started practicing architecture by doing historic restoration projects before founding his own fi rm in 1978. Atelier Zumthor is located in Haldenstein, Switzerland and operates with a staff of thirty. Although his practice is modest in scale, Zumthor has been the recipient of many prestigious awards, including the 2009 Pritzker Prize and the 2013 RIBA Royal Gold Medal. These awards are testaments to his lifelong architectural achievements. Zumthor’s career has been based around his ability to work with materials and to understand the role of craft in the process of making architecture. In his essay, “A Way of Looking at Things,” Zumthor says this about Joseph Beuys’ use of materials: “It seems anchored in an ancient, elemental knowledge about man’s use of materials, and at the same time to expose the very essence of these materials which is beyond all culturally conveyed meaning.”1 With that in mind, Zumthor strives to use materials that offer a poetic quality to any architectural work. However, because materials are not inherently poetic, it is the architect who creates any meaningful situation for them. He breaks from the palpable rules of composition by not defi ning materials in terms of smell and acoustic quality. Rather he designs with the intent that a material in one location is perceived differently than when situated in another location.

Project Brief

While Peter Zumthor may have gained international acclaim for Therme Vals, a decade earlier he completed one of his less recognized masterpieces: The Shelter for Roman Ruins. The shelter serves as a protective enclosure for colonial Roman ruins dating back to 4AD. The site, located in Chur, Switzerland not far from Zumthor’s studio, consists of the foundations of ancient roman houses. Zumthor’s concept for the shelter was to align the structure with the existing foundations to provide visitors a sense of scale of the preexisting buildings. The design scheme utilized the existing geometry of the nearly square foundations to form the groundwork of the shelter (Figure 9.2). Along the modern street edge, where the physical entrances once were, is a visual portal into the past. This portal gives passersby a glimpse into the shelter, but restricts access. Located on the East façade is the new entrance. Zumthor placed the entrance on the side so that he could form a clear axis running through each volume of space. “The treatment of the entrances represents a play on the relationship between history and the present.”2 The stairs leading up to the steel door do not touch the 89 A

3 1

4

Legend

(Public) East Ruins 1 (Private) East Ruins 2 Central Ruins 3 2 West Ruins 4

LEGEND 1 RUINS 1 (PUBLIC) 2 RUINS 1 (PRIVATE) 3 RUINS 2 Figure 9.2 4 RUINS 3 Floor Plan

A

Legend

(Public) East Ruins 1 (Private) East Ruins 2

2 1 Figure 9.3 Building Section

90 Shelter for Roman Ruins ground and aid in Zumthor’s idea of separating the past from the present. After stepping through the metal door, the individual is greeted by the open volume of the interior. This gesture is perceived by the free exchange of light, sound, and air fl owing through the timber lamella walls. Zumthor aligned the primary circulation axis with the building entrance. Visitors walk on an elevated path above the ruins. Two breaks along the walkway allow visitors to step down into the ruins. Zumthor again plays with the separation of old and new by lightly touching the ground with the steps coming off the circulation path (Figure 9.3). The stone of the ruins contrasts with black fabric, which has been draped on the enclosure behind, and the entire space is bathed in zenithal light fl ooding from above.

Tectonic Principles

Stereotomic | Tectonic The majority of this project is comprised of tectonic construction. Timber posts and beams are the primary structural system, and timber slats are the primary cladding. Even though timber is usually associated with tectonic construction, this building can give the impression of being both stereotomic and tectonic. From the exterior, the tightly spaced wood slats give the shelters a dense aesthetic. Adding to this density is the weathering of the wood, as over time the cladding has patinaed to an earthy grey. This neutral color begins to blur together with the shadows in between the slats limiting any depth in the façade. The perception of a stereotomic box from the exterior is contrasted by the atmosphere the cladding provides on the interior. The tectonic nature of the shelters is expressed as light and air pass through the façade. Unlike on the exterior, the lamella wall does not weather as signifi cantly on the inside, where the wood has retained its natural orange color (Figure 9.4). When light hits the interior wood, the space is fi lled with a warming glow. The effect is enhanced at night. The interior lights shine through the cladding and reveal the tectonic nature of the enclosures (Figure 9.5). In effect the Shelter transitions from a heavy box to a delicate shell.

StereotomicStereotomic

TectonicTectonic

Figure 9.4 Perception of Stereotomic vs. Tectonic

91 Figure 9.5 Exterior View of Facade at Night

This duality of construction is Zumthor’s tectonic statement. Eduard Sekler, a 20th century architectural historian and professor, defi nes a tectonic statement as, “…the noble gesture which makes visible a play of forces, of load and support in column and entablature, calling forth our own empathetic participation in the experience.”3 From the stereotomic exterior perspective, the shelters have an appearance of resting on the ground. Then on the tectonic interior perspective, the timber frame expresses the true nature of visible forces. This shift in perception from outside to inside makes one empathize with the nature of the shelters; the protective enclosure wrapped around an experiential space.

Anatomy Many architects have addressed the classifi cation of architectural elements as part of their theoretical approaches to design. One of those architects, Gottfried Semper, was a German who is known for his theory of the four elements of architecture. He based his work on the study of a Caribbean hut and identifi ed the hearth, earthwork, roof, and enclosure as its basic elements. In his system, Semper believed that the earthwork, framework, and cladding serve to protect the hearth or social and cultural center of place.4 This notion of protection is brought to life in the shelter’s metaphysical nature. The ruins are the hearth and fi nd safety and protection through the other architectural elements (Figure 9.6). The fi rst line of defense is the earthwork. This element takes the form of a concreate foundation offset from the ruins. The foundation functions as a retaining wall holding back the unexcavated soil from the archaeological site. To bridge the gap over the earthwork and the hearth, Zumthor introduced a steel footbridge. The footbridge is a metal framework that shapes the circulation path. The next major element is the timber framework. This framework defi nes the interior volume of the shelter. In addition to shaping space, the timber framework supports a black fabric, which visually separates the timber framework and earthwork from the ruins, creating a transition between new and old constructions. Cladding the framework are horizontal timber slats. The downward angle of the slats and narrow spacing prevents the penetration of harsh environmental elements to the interior environment and to the ruins.

92 Shelter for Roman Ruins

1: Hearth 2:2: Earthwork Earthwork Roman ruinsruins are are the the driving driving cultural cultural factor ConcreteConcrete foundation foundation walls walls hold back soil and shaping the design. provide base for framework. factor shaping the design. hold back soil and provide base for framework.

3: FrameworkFramework | Steel| Steel 4:4: Framework Framework | Timber | Timber A steel footfoot bridge bridge shapes shapes the the main main circulation TimberTimber columns columns stand stand on on the the concrete concrete circualtionpath and steel path boxes and framesteel boxesvisual portalsframe foundationfoundation and and begin begin to toform form the the interior along the street. volume. visual portals along the street. interior volume.

5: Cladding 6: Roof | Skylights 5: Cladding 6: Roof | Skylights The exterior facade provides shelter for the Skylights are inserted into the roof above the Theruins exterior with timber facade lamella provides walls. centerSkylights in each are blockinserted of ruins.into the The roof two aboveclose to the the shelter for the ruins with timber streetcenter facade in each highlight block theof ruins.junction The between two closer the lamella walls. footbridgeto the street and facade ruins. highlight the junction Figure 9.6 between the footbridge and ruins. Anatomy

93 Another individual who contributed to the theory of architectural tectonics was Karl Bötticher. He viewed the roof as the driving factor for the form to a building.5 The Shelters for Roman Ruins contradict Bötticher’s view. The irregular geometry of the ruins forces the earthwork and framework to mold around it. The roof then follows the shape of the framework. Nestled into the roof are three rhomboid skylights. The two skylights on the North highlight the intersection of the steel framework and the ruins. Located above this metaphoric meeting of past and present is a zenithal light emphasizing a harmonious union between each element of the building (Figure 9.7).

Figure 9.7 Skylight over Ruins 94 Shelter for Roman Ruins Detail

Buildings are artifi cial constructions. They consist of single parts which must be joined together. To a large degree, the quality of the fi nished object is determined by the quality of the joints.6 - Peter Zumthor, Architecture and Urbanism, 1998

When a building is constructed, it is built using joints. Marco Frascari, an Italian architect and theorist, describes two types of joints in his essay “The Tell-the-Tale Detail.” The fi rst type is a material joint like the connection between column and beam. The second joint is more formal in nature like the threshold between the interior and exterior of a building.7 In Zumthor’s project, the circulation path is a formal joint. From the exterior the shelters are easily identifi ed as being grounded to the site. On the east side of the building, however, the entrance is visible. The visitor is greeted with a projecting steel box, which breaks the continuity of the timber slats wrapping the volumes. The entrance is identifi able as signifi cant for two reasons: a change in materiality and a disconnect from the ground plane. It is the second factor that is most striking. The steel box enclosing the entrance projects out of the wall and forms the steps (Figure 9.8). This fl oating architectural element, which meets the ground in virtually all architectural works, provides the connection between outside to inside. A similar strategy is used on the interior. Branching off the main circulation path are two sets of steel stairs, which descend into the ruins. These interior stairs appear to hover above the ground and their metallic color contrasts with the wood structure and the ruins themselves. Unlike the exterior stair, the interior stairs have no ability to create the cantilevered condition required to support themselves in the air. Therefore, they do have steel supports which are tucked behind their face and hidden in the stair’s shadow (Figure 9.9). These details express meaning. Frascari said, “The geometrical structures embodied in the architectural details do not state facts but rather provide a structure for stating facts within a ‘scale.’ They give us a way of making comparisons that meaningfully relate visually perceived architectural details.”8 The visual perception of fl oating stairs both on the interior and exterior is a sign of respect to the ruins. The stairs avoid a collision between past and present by creating a formal joint visually linking and separating the two.

Figure 9.8 Exterior Stairs 95 Figure 9.9 Stair Details

Exterior StairStairs Interior Interior StairStairs

Additional Resources

Projects Kunsthaus Bregenz: Bregenz, Austria 1990-1997 Swiss Sound box: Hannover, Germany 2000 Bruder Klaus Field Chapel: Mechernich, Germany 2007

References Hubeli, Erst und Fumagalli, Paolo: Schutzbaute für römische Funde, Welschdörfl i bei Chur, in: Werk, Bauen + Wohnen 74/41, 1987, no. 10, pp. 40-43. Zumthor, Peter. 2006. Thinking Architecture, 2nd ed. Boston: Birkhauser. Zumthor, Peter. Chutzbau über Ausgrabungen in Chur, CH, in: Detail, Serie 28, 1988, no. 5, pp. 499- 504.

Notes 1 Peter Zumthor, Architecture and Urbanism February 1998 Extra Edition, (Tokyo, Japan: a+u Publishing Co., 1998), 8. 2 Ibid., 28. 3 Eduard Sekler, “Structure, Construction, Tectonics,” in Structure in Art and Science, ed. Gyorgy Kepes (New York: Braziller, 1965), 93. 4 Harry Francis Mallgrave, Gustav Klemm and Gottfried Semper: The Meeting of Ethnological and Architectural Theory, (The President and Fellows of Harvard College), 75. 5 Karl Botticher, “The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building with Regard to Their Application to Our Present Way of Building,” in What Style Should we Build? The German Debate on Architectural Style, ed. Wolfgang Herrmann (Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1992), 154. 6 Zumthor, Architecture and Urbanism, 12. 7 Marco Frascari, “The Tell-the-Tale Detail.” Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture, an Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, ed. Kate Nesbitt (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 501. (originally published in VIA 7: The Building of Architecture (1984): 23-37.) 8 Ibid., 505.

96 Figure 9.10 Exterior View of South Facade 97 Figure 10.1 Exterior View of the Soe Ker Tie Houses 98 10 Soe Ker Tie Houses | TYIN Tegnestue

Firm Brief

It is natural for designers to strive for beautiful surfaces and expressions. It just happens as a consequence of using the available resources in the right way.1 - Andreas Grontvedt Gjertsen

TYIN Tegnestue is a Norwegian architectural fi rm, established in 2008 by a small group of architecture students from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology. In order to complete their studies, the group established a new curriculum for their university centered on non-profi t, humanitarian projects in Thailand. Their fi rm and its projects have been funded by more than sixty Norwegian companies, allowing them to continue to work in third-world regions. TYIN wants to use architecture to help people who are living in less than ideal circumstances and to work to improve the conditions in their communities. They focus on bringing the culture and resources of the region into their projects, then they take these elements and merge them together to design and create structures. The fi rm’s use of locally sourced resources also empowers the partnering communities with new knowledge and techniques for creating structures and improving their lifestyle. The core beliefs of TYIN are creating architecture in which everything serves a purpose and developing buildings that follow necessity.2 Working within this system of beliefs, the fi rm creates highly sustainable architecture, a strategy which has garnered the group a number of signifi cant awards for their efforts.3

Project Brief

The Soe Ker Tie Houses, also known as The Butterfl y Houses, are located in Noh Bo, Thailand near the border of Myanmar and Burma (Figure 10.1). This region has been in confl ict for almost sixty years, forcing several hundred thousand people to fl ee and leaving Karen refugee children orphaned and displaced. In 2006, an orphanage was created by Ole Jorgen Edna, a Norwegian Social Worker, to help these children.4 He solicited the assistance of TYIN to design special dorm housing for the orphans. In total, twenty-four children are able to be sheltered in these homes (Figure 10.2), but future plans have been drafted to allow that number to be doubled.5 Each dwelling contains three platforms that are utilized for different purposes (Figure 10.3). The fi rst platform, or ground fl oor, is the main public space. Here, the children interact with each other freely (Figure 10.4). The second and third platforms, since they are elevated, are considered to be the private spaces of the dwellings, and contain room for personal belongings and sleeping spaces for three to four children.

99 Figure 10.2 Floor Plan

Figure 10.3 Section 100 Soe Ker Tie Houses

Figure 10.4 Interior View of Living Platforms

101 The materials for the project are primarily of local origin. The most prominent resources used were bamboo for the siding and fl oors and ironwood, which is a dense, native wood, for the structure. To keep the building materials protected from moisture, the houses were raised off the ground with footings made from tires and concrete.6 Passive ventilation was also an important factor for these buildings because of the environmental conditions of the region. The architects responded to this need through the roof confi guration and through the inclusion of woven siding to help the circulation of air. The buildings are topped with metal roofs, which have generous overhangs to protect the unsealed wood below. The overhangs also protect the bamboo siding, allowing for it to stay dry and resist rot. Since bamboo is a sustainable and readily available resource in the region, it is cost-effective and, as such, is the most prominent material used in these houses, serving as both siding and fl ooring. For the fl oor surface, the bamboo is left whole, with the diaphragms intact, and is bound together to create a solid walking surface.7 When the bamboo is used as a screen in the wall, it is either left as a full round with the inner diaphragms removed or it is cut in half and woven together. The weaving of bamboo takes advantage of the material’s tensile strength, which makes it a viable option for siding on these houses.

Tectonic Principles

Construction | Place TYIN is driven to carefully consider each detail of each project and to be conscious of the realities of their work. This philosophy falls in line with the discussion Eduard Sekler, architectural historian and author of Structure, Construction, Tectonics, has in relation to construction: “As far as construction is concerned there are all the questions of selecting and handling materials, of process and technique.”8 The architects and designers working on the Soe Ker Tie houses have a similar belief system, which aligned with Sekler’s philosophy. They researched local materials and traditions to make an effort to design a facility that was in tune with its place and built for longevity in the region (Figure 10.5). One tradition borrowed from the surrounding community was the technique of creating a woven bamboo wall Figure 10.6) Locals were hired onto the project to assist in the construction of the bamboo walls, while assisting in weaving they were taught modern construction techniques.9

Figure 10.5 Local Man Weaving Bamboo Siding

102 Soe Ker Tie Houses

Woven Bamboo Siding

Bamboo Stalk-Flooring Without Diaphragms

Bamboo Stalk-Screen Without Diaphragms Figure 10.6 Uses of Bamboo

In the Four Elements of Architecture, architect and tectonic founding father Gottfried Semper discusses his belief that many tribes fi rst started by making ‘hedge-fences’ which are the beginnings of wickerwork, and weaving of tree branches to form continuous sheets of material which would protect the interior from the exterior environment.10 The Soe Ker Tie houses’ primary facades relate to this statement as they are at their core a hut, and the enclosure of the space is made from woven bamboo. This technique of weaving bamboo can be inferred that it has been used in the region for generations, due to the readily available nature of the resource and generational passing of fabrication techniques.

103 He T gs Th co 1: Earthwork 4: Hearth The building was built on footings made from The small pieces around the complex that the tires and concrete orphans are able to manipulate are the hearths.

Cl T floors Ea a south wall. us 2: Framework | Interior 5: Cladding The ironwood boards frame the fl oors and are Each house is clad in bamboo using a variety used as cladding on the south wall. of techniques.

Ro T Th c ructure of 3: Framework | Exterior a 6: Roof The structure is lap joined and connected with The roof is placed over the top of the structure and bolts and the structure also dictates the form its form is controlled by structural ironwood arms. Figure 10.7 and space. Anatomy 104 Soe Ker Tie Houses Anatomy The foundation of the Soe Ker Tie houses are simple footings fabricated from recycled tires fi lled with concrete. The footings allow for minimal ground disturbance and also keep the houses fl oating above the earth to keep the structure away from the moisture in the ground. The structural framework of the units extends upward at a variety of angles, creating the unique form of these dwellings. The angles of the ironwood armature were determined by the positioning and extent of the butterfl y roofs. The structure of the three interior platforms was also constructed of the same ironwood, while whole bamboo stalks were used for the fl ooring. After the structure and platforms were in place, the houses were clad in a variety of ways: a weaving of bamboo, a screen of hollowed out bamboo cores, and ironwood panels. Finally, the Soe Ker Tie houses were topped with butterfl y roofs made from corrugated metal panels. (Figure 10.7).

Figure 10.8 Kids on the Bamboo Swing 105 In the Four Elements of Architecture, Semper discusses that each culture has adapted to and made more prominent one or more of the elements of architecture.11 The Soe Ker Tie houses, in accordance with Semper’s defi nition, is similar to a traditional hut structure. The hearth does not occur in each individual dwelling but rather in the complex as a whole. In the complex, there are special pieces that create a sense of home and hearth for the orphans who live there: a swing, an outdoor grill, and a chess set, amongst others. These individual aspects, each being their own hearth, give the children a place to grow and play as a community (Figure 10.8). The earth around the houses is hardly disturbed during the construction process as each home is built up to avoid contact with the moisture in the ground. As stated before, the tradition of woven bamboo siding encloses each dwelling and works with the climate. Gaps in the woven cladding help ventilate the spaces within, which is essential in the humid climate. The climate and region of Thailand in which these dwellings are located requires a passive system to be used to ventilate the spaces. Accordingly, the roof also refl ects Semper’s defi nition of a hut, as it is specifi cally characterized for the region in which it is located, but thought through in a modern way.

Detail In The Tell-the-Tale Detail, Marco Frascari discusses how the defi nition of a detail has changed in relation to everyday thought and its use in architecture. He compares how the dictionary defi nition of detail - a small part in a larger whole - differs from an architectural defi nition of detail – “a joint.”12 Frascari then examines how the word detail has changed over time with respect to architectural practice, initially inferenced in the fi eld during construction from sketches, but now fully considered in the offi ce long before the onset of construction.13 In the Soe Ker Tie houses, the means of construction were only talked through in person, the only drawings for this project were a plan and a section, and construction methods were developed from traditional practices of the community. (Figure 10.9). This means of working minimized the modern day expression of detailing and, instead, created a hybrid of old and new techniques.

Figure 10.9 Local Men and Children Lifting a Side of a House 106 Soe Ker Tie Houses

Step One: Two long Ironwood boards Step Two: One board is pla the long two parallel board Step One parallel to each other and Step Two Two long Ironwood boards parallel to each One board is placed in the middle of the other and perpendicular to the ground. long two parallel boards and bolted.

Step Three: Two boards are placed parallel to the single board in the middle and are bolted into place. Step Four: The boards for t to create the buttefly profi Figure 10.10 Step Three Step Four Two boards are placed parallel to the single The boards for the roof are then angled up to Structural Joint Detail board in the middle and are bolted into. create the butterfl y profi le.

The detailing in these dwellings follows both defi nitions and history of detail outlined in Frascari’s writing. In the structure of the Soe Ker Tie houses, the ironwood boards are prefabricated on site and then bolted together. The fabrication of the structural system is a complex joining of boards in a lap joined confi guration where boards are parallel to each other and bolted to keep structural members stiff and load bearing.14 At the critical intersection of the two roof planes, there are vertical columns composed of a pair of ironwood boards attached to the tire footings below (Figure 10.10). The boards are placed parallel to each other and are spaced apart to leave a gap between to receive a smaller board. When the board in the middle is inserted, all three pieces are bolted together. At the top end of the middle board, two more boards are placed similar to those of the post, but stretching off horizontally to support one plane of the roof. Another arm is placed on the opposite side of the column and all of the members are secured with bolts. This series of boards creates the most complex connection in the projects and plays a signifi cant role in defi ning the form of the dwelling.

107 Additional Resources

Projects Safe Haven Library by TYIN Tegnestue Safe Haven Bathhouse by TYIN Tegnestue Klong Toey Community Lantern by TYIN Tegnestue

References Bell, Victoria Ballard, and Patrick Rand. 2014. Materials for Architecture Design 2. London: Laurence King. Gjertsen, Andreas Grontvedt, and Mi-ju Kwon. 2009. “TYIN Tegnestue [interview].” Space. DEC (505): 76-91. N/A. 2010. “Tyin Tegnestue: Soe Ker Tie Hias, Noh Bo, Tak, Thailand, 2009.” Lotus International (142): 46-48.

Notes 1 Andreas Grontvedt Gjertsen and Mi-ju Kwon, “TYIN Tegnestue [Interview],” Space (2009): 79. 2 Ibid. 3 “Awards,” TYIN Architects, accessed October 1, 2017, http://www.tyinarchitects.com/cv/. 4 Joe Flaherty, “Brilliant Architectural Ideas, Brought to Life in a Low-Budget Orphanage,” Wired, last modifi ed on June 1, 2017, https://www.wired.com/2014/03/orphanages-inspired-butterfl ies- bamboo/. 5 “TYIN Tegnestue: Soe Ker Tie Hias, Noh Bo, Tak, Thailand, 2009,” Lotus International (June 2010): 47. 6 Victoria Ballard Bell and Patrick Rand, Materials for Architectural Design 2 (London: Laurence King, 2014), 104. 7 Ibid. 8 Eduard Sekler, Structure, Construction, Tectonics (New York: Braziller, 1965), 89. 9 Nico Saieh, “Soe Ker Tie House / TYIN Tegnestue,” Arch Daily, last modifi ed June 22, 2009, http://www.archdaily.com/25748/soe-ker-tie-house-tyin-tegnestue. 10 Gottfried Semper, “Chapter 5 The Four Elements, Chapter 6 Practical Applications,” The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings¬: 103 11 Semper, The Four Elements of Architecture and Other Writings¬: 110 12 Marco Fracari,”The Tell-the-Tale Detail,” In Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995: 501 13 Ibid. 503 14 Bell and Rand, Materials for Architectural Design 2, 104

108 109 Figure 11.1 View from the Desert © Jeff Goldberg/Esto 11 0 11 Tyler Residence | Rick Joy

Architect Brief

Rick Joy worked as a carpenter and musician before deciding to study architecture at the University of Arizona in Tucson. Once there, he fell in love with the desert and started his fi rm, Rick Joy Architects, in 1993. The fi rm has become known for its high-concept contemporary design, specifi cally in high end residential projects throughout the Southwest. Joy’s deep understanding of the sensory dimension of architecture is derived from his experience as a carpenter and musician, and is prevalent in his work. Joy’s experience as a carpenter is refl ected in his relationship with the process of making. He chooses to be involved in all aspects of the building process, reestablishing the architect’s role as the true master of construction work.1 He utilizes materials and construction techniques in a very contextual manner and as a mean to convey certain sensual messages. Throughout his earlier career he utilized rammed earth, which is an ancient wall-building technique common in the Southwest. Applying such a technique, he established a dialogue with both the environment and the historical context. Rick Joy’s understanding and appreciation of music has had a profound impact on how he views architecture. He states that, “silence is often more profound than sound.”2 He believes that the role of architecture is to “create the silence, calmness, and concentration that enable us to experience the beauty of the world and life around us.”3 In taking this stance on architecture, maneuvering his buildings becomes a theatrical experience that is both relaxing and enticing.4

Project Brief

The Tyler Residence, located in Tubac, Arizona, was designed for a retired astronomer and his wife (Figure 11.1). The residence is a 4,000-square foot second home that is nestled in the desert landscape, fi fty miles south of Tucson and fi fteen miles from the Mexican border (Figure 11.2).5 The site was chosen for its desert panorama and 360-degree views to three mountain ranges. A shelf was fi rst carved into the landscape to receive the house. Two U-shaped concrete retaining walls separate the natural and built environments. The house is in the form of two-shed like structures half embedded in the ground and sitting on the retaining walls. The larger of the two forms is a 2,500-square-foot main dwelling area while the other contains the studio and guest bedroom (Figure 11.3).6 The courtyard serves to both tie the forms together and separate served from servant. The inspiration for the house derived from the confi guration of a geode with a rough exterior shell protecting a jewel-like interior. The material palate of the Tyler residence mimics the geode. The exterior walls of the residence are clad in weathered steel and are punctuated by steel box windows that frame 111 8 6

9 12 7 6

5 12 4

3 1 Legend 5 Entry 01 2 Kitchen 02 Living Room 03 1. Entry Bathroom 04 10 2. Kitchen Bedroom 05 3. Living Room Offi ce 06 4. Bathroom Laundry 11 07 5. Bedroom Workshop 08 6. Office Garage 09 7. Laundry Porch 10 8. Workshop Pool 11 9. Garage Courtyard 12 10. Porch 11. Pool Figure 11.2 Floor Plan

Figure 11.3 Building Section 112 Tyler Residence views of the mountain ranges in the distance.7 The surrounding desert vistas can have an overwhelming quality and from the interior the windows are able to contain and control this expansiveness.8 The interior sits in contrast to the exterior with its use of white plaster, stainless steel, maple, and translucent glazing. On approach, the house blends into the landscape, mimicking the rusted artifacts found in the Arizona desert. A descending concrete staircase nestled in between the retaining walls signifi es the entrance to the house. The entry courtyard is cool and enclosed to contrast the hot expansiveness of the surrounding desert.9 The entrance to the house is a large double height exterior space from which the interior expands to meet the exterior. In this home, Joy creates delineations to emphasize where the contrasting interior and exteriors conditions meet, allowing one to peer through the cracks of the rough exterior to view the jewel within.

Tectonic Principles

Anatomy In his writings, architect and tectonic theorist Gottfried Semper divides architecture into four essential elements: hearth, earthwork, framework, and enclosure.10 Semper tied each element to unique underlying elements: earthwork to masonry, framework to carpentry, cladding to textiles, and the hearth to ceramics.11 The earthwork of the Tyler residence consists of the U-shaped retaining walls, which describe the boundaries of the built environment (Figure 11.4). These retaining walls become the connecting elements between built environment and the ground. The shelf that was carved from the landscape becomes the resting place for the hearth. While Semper maintains that the fi re traditionally was a symbol of the hearth, here in the desert, the elements of water found in the courtyard serve a similar purpose. The exterior courtyard becomes the hearth for the house which sits in the center of the carved-out shelf. The courtyard is fl anked by the two primary volumes of the house and the entry stair. This confi guration of elements sets up the courtyard as the center of activity, an oasis in the desert landscape (Figure 11.5).

1: Shelf 2: Earthwork 3: Hearth A shelf was cut into the landscape to The U-shaped retaining walls create The courtyard acts as the hearth sitting receive the house. the space for the house. in the center of the shelf.

4: Framework | Enclosure 5: Enclosure | Punctures The wood studs are embedded in the The windows act to frame the weathered exterior walls. The steel landscape. The steel boxes amplify Figure 11.4 shed-like structures shelter the hearth. this idea. Anatomy 113 Figure 11.5 View of Pool Terrace © Jeff Goldberg/Esto

In the Tyler residence, the framework and the cladding are integral aspects of the wrapped steel forms of the house. The framework of the house consists of wood studs that serve as the structural core for the exterior walls. Weathered steel panels serve as the cladding and hide the framework elements from viewers, concealing the inner workings of the house’s structural reality. Windows puncture the veil between interior and exterior realms of the residence. Where these punctures occur, Joy expresses them through the use of projecting steel boxes, which contain the glazing at the outer edges. Through these portals, he frames views of the exterior world.

Figure 11.6 Night View from Gravel Path © Jeff Goldberg/Esto 114 Tyler Residence Precedent | Place The precedent Rick Joy utilized in the design of the Tyler Residence was a rusted artifact peeking through the desert sand, reminiscent of many such structures found throughout the Arizona desert. Additionally, the house was designed as a geode-like structure. The precedent of a geode allowed the exterior of the building to speak directly to the rustic environment, while still maintaining a clean, modern palate on the interior. The weathered steel on the exterior relates it to the environment. The interior, being clad in white plaster and stainless-steel detailing, contrasts this harsh exterior. This contrast amplifi es the differentiation of the interior and exterior realms. Windows serve as cracks in the shell of the geode (Figure 11.7). Semper established two typologies regarding architectural tectonics and the relationship to place: the wall-dominated courtyard building and the roof-dominated hut.12 In The Four Elements of Architecture, Semper discusses how courtyard style buildings were created in warmer southern areas to deal with climate conditions. The Tyler Residence is a courtyard style building that addresses both the climatic context and the desert landscape to which it belongs (Figure 11.6). The courtyard of the Tyler Residence is sub-divided into two sectors: the private and the public. The public sector is the fi rst space that is introduced as part of the built environment. The courtyard, serving as an entry plaza, is shaded to cool the space and provide visitors with relief from the hot desert climate. The stairs leading down into the courtyard are nestled between the house forms. In his writings, architect and architectural theorist Marco Frascari describes perception as the idea of an object resulting from our interpretation of sensations that occur in the unconscious.13 The experience of walking down between the two forms evokes the feeling of descending into a canyon, thereby establishing the unconscious connection with the surrounding context acting as a transitional phase between the natural and built environments.

Views to Mountain Ranges Views to Courtyard

Views to Mountain Ran

Views to Courtyard

Office

Courtyard Bedroom

Living/Dining

Figure 11.7 View Analysis

115 Construction | Atectonic

The two primary archetypes: the hearth and the cloth, the Urherd and the Urtuch. They were the fi rst mark of settlement and the fi rst fabrication.14

Semper separates architecture into these two archetypes and the Tyler Residence embodies the idea of marking space using the hearth and the cloth. In Joy’s work it is evident that the demarcation of space becomes a crucial aspect of the design. The demarcation of space becomes even more important in the Tyler residence where the vast desert landscape envelops the built environment. The design of the house uses both the hearth and the cloth to signify different types of spaces and the change from natural environment to built environment. The courtyard acts as the hearth and serves as the exterior demarcation of space as it becomes the entry point from the desert landscape. The exterior planes of the house act as the cloth and serve as the demarcation between the interior and exterior realms. The courtyard as the hearth serves as the transitional element from interior to exterior and thus is the fi rst introduction to the built environment. The courtyard is intricately designed to serve as a delicate transition from the desert landscape to the house. Joy achieves such intricacy by taking elements which are sporadic in the landscape and placing them very deliberately. Such elements are the mesquite trees which are seen scattered in the landscape. In the courtyard, the mesquite trees are placed in rectilinear planters showcasing how the landscape becomes a part of the hearth in the same way that the house becomes part of the landscape.

Figure 11.8 View of Wall Protrusion © Jeff Goldberg/Esto

116 Tyler Residence

Steel box frameSteel box windows frames windows give gives the feeling of thethe feelingfacade of the peeling. facade Glulam header allows for peeling away Glulam Headerthe allows large for opening. the large opening Sealant glazingSealant glazingallows allows for for planes planes to be uninterrupted by mullions 24-guage 24-guageweathered weathered steel steel 2x6 in. wood framing structurally to be uninterrupted by mullions. gives the feeling of a 2X6 Wood Framing gives the feelingrusted artifact of a rusted supportsstructurally the exterior supports walls. artifact. the exterior walls

Figure 11.9 Weathered Steel Facade Analysis

The exterior walls serve as the cloth and consist of a wood stud framing structure clad in twenty- four-gauge custom weathered steel panels. The wood framing is invisible to onlookers and thus the weathered steel exterior feels very much like a wrapper containing the interior spaces. The places where the exterior walls are interrupted are places where Joy further expresses the idea of the constant wrapper encompassing the house. Steel boxes encompass the windows to signify the places where a view to the interior realm is possible from outside the house (Figure 11.8). From the interior the steel boxes act as framing elements further portraying the differentiation between interior and exterior. The steel boxes around the windows give the impression that the material itself is being peeled away from the wall to create the openings. At these locations, Joy makes sure to not show any structural elements from the wall or the glazing, further developing the idea of a constant wrapper around the house (Figure 11.9). Glulam headers are used to span the large openings of the windows allowing for the elimination of primary structural elements that would normally occur.15 Sealant glazing is a technique that uses a sealant instead of mullions to support the glass and was used to eliminate any structural elements that would normally be supporting the glass. The use of sealant glazing and glulam headers allowed for the language of materials as constant planes to continue in both the steel and glass planes. 16Using atectonic construction methods, Rick Joy embraced the idea of the hearth and the cloth. In the Tyler residence everything is, or is enveloped by, these two elements (Figure 11.10).

117 Additional Resources

Projects Catalina House, Tucson, Arizona, United States, 1998 Desert Nomad House, Tucson, Arizona, United States, 2005 Ventana Canyon House, Tucson, Arizona, United States, 2008

References Amelar, Sarah, “Clad in Weathered Steel, Rick Joy’s TYLER RESIDENCE Resonates with the Deep Red Earth of the Sonoran Desert.” Architectural Record 189, no. 4 (April 2001): 138. https://search. proquest.com/docview/222101891. Joy, Rick, Rick Joy: Desert Works. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002. Joy, Rick, Steven Holl and Juhani Pallasmaa. Rick Joy: Desert Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002.

Notes 1 Rick Joy, Steven Holl, and Juhani Pallasmaa, Rick Joy: Desert Houses (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002), 1. 2 Rick Joy, Letter to Juhani Pallasmaa, November 15, 2001. 3 Rick Joy, Letter to Juhani Pallasmaa, 31 October 2001: comments inspired by an article by Herbert Muschamp 4 Susanna Sirefman, “Rick Joy’s Tubac House: “Desert Treasure.” Graphis 61, no. 355 (January 2005): 35. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1459605933. 5 Ibid., 35. 6 Patricia Leigh Brown, “Coyote Neighbors, Lightning Views.” The New York Times, February 1, 2001, https://search.proquest.com/docview/431686574. 7 Rick Joy, “Rick Joy: Tubac House,” UME, 18, 2004, 46-49. 8 Brown, “Lightning Views,” 9 Ibid., F1. 10 Gottfried Semper, “The Four Elements of Architecture: A Contribution to the Comparative Study of Architecture,” in The Four Elements and Other Writings, ed. Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann, (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010). (Originally published in 1851.) 11 Frampton, “Botticher, Semper and the Tectonic,” 144. 12 Semper, “The Four Elements of Architecture,” 13 Marco Frascari, “The Tell-the-Tale Detail,”504. 14 Joseph Rykwert, The Necessity of Artifi ce (New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1982), 129. 15 Joy, “Tubac House,” 16 Contemporary Authors, “Joy, Rick 1958-,” Encyclopedia.com. (November 12, 2017), http://www. encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/joy-rick-1958.

118 Figure 10.10 Night View of Interior © Jeff Goldberg/Esto 119 120 Supporting Material

121 122 Afterword | Alex Wilson

In the details are the possibilities of innovation and invention, and it is through these that architects can give harmony to the most uncommon and diffi cult…environment generated by a culture.1 - Marco Frascari, The Tell-the-Tale Detail, 1981

Architectural history traces the constantly evolving conditions of our built environment; these conditions change because of technological innovation and shifting cultural beliefs, amongst a host of other catalysts. Those individuals engaged with the development of the theory of architectural tectonics, including Gottfried Semper, Karl Botticher, Karl Friedrich Schinkel, and others, proposed the need for evolutionary shifts within the practice of architecture. Many of these historians, most notably Semper and Botticher, investigated the remains of ancient civilizations, attempting to analyze the reasoning behind the architectural choices made in an effort to fi nd precedent to impact direction contemporary architectural theory. The foundation of architectural tectonics was derived from the study of the built works of these past cultures. While some of the interpretations proposed by these philosophers remain to be concluded as valid, “they remain correct in their general, if not specifi c conclusions, regardless of the inaccuracy of much of the historical analysis used to support them.”2 In this seminar, we used the lessons learned from each theorist as points of reference for our investigation. Each chapter of this book focuses on how those concepts relate to an architectural project from the past half-century. The study of tectonics allows for a more critical reading of the architectural components of our built environment, tying together design intent and constructed reality. This connection, in turn, promotes an understanding that architecture is not just about how one inhabits a space, but also how we construct the experience, which is essential to our understanding of architecture as a whole.

1 Marco, Frascari. “The Tell-the-Tale Detail.” In Theorizing a new agenda for architecture: an anthology of architectural theory: 1965-1995, New York City, New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996,3. 2 Edward R., Ford, “Foreword,” in Introducing Architectural Tectonics: exploring the intersection of design and construction, ed Chad Schwartz (New York City: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017), xiii.

123 124 References

Aleph, Faena. “The 7 Principles of Zen Applied to Design,” In Simplicity and Elegance, 2013. Allen, Katherine, Patrick Lynch, Thomas Musca, Sabrina Syed, AD Editorial Team, Suneet Zishan Langar, Sabrina Santos, Luke Fiederer, James Taylor-Foster, Karissa Rosenfi eld, and Rory Stott. “Spotlight: Tadao Ando.” In ArchDaily. 2017. Annette, Lecuyer. “Steel, Stone, and Sky”. October 1995 ed. Vol. CCV. Series 1220. London, England: The Architectural Review, 1995: 44-48. Bell, Victoria Ballard, and Patrick Rand. 2014. Materials for Architecture Design 2. London: Laurence King. Bognár, Botond. Beyond the Bubble: the New Japanese Architecture. London: Phaidon, 2008, 202- 218 . Botticher, Karl, “The Principle of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building with Regard to Their Application to Our Present Way of Building,” In What Style Should We Build? Santa Monica: The Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1992, 147-167. Botticher, Karl. “Excerpts from Die Tektonik Der Hellenen.” Translated by Lynnette Widder. In Otto Wagner, Adolf Loos, and the Road to Modern Architecture, edited by Werner Oechslin, New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002, 188-97. Brown, Patricia Leigh, “Coyote Neighbors, Lightning Views.” The New York Times, February 1, 2001. https://search.proquest.com/docview/431686574. Carles, Vallhonrat. “Tectonics Considered.” Perspecta, vol. 24, 1988: 123-135. Co, Francesco Dal. “Tadao Ando,” Phaidon Press Limited, 1995. Contemporary Authors, “Joy, Rick 1958-.” Encyclopedia.com. Accessed on November 12, 2017. http://www.encyclopedia.com/arts/educational-magazines/joy-rick-1958. Cook, Jeffrey. The Architecture of Bruce Goff. Harper & Row, 1978. Crosbie, Michael. “Houses of God: Religious Architecture for a New Millenium” New York: Watson- Guptill Publications, 174-179. 2006. De Long, David Gilson. Bruce Goff: Toward Absolute Architecture. The MIT Press, 1988. “Delta Shelter | Olson Kundig.” archdaily.com. Last modifi ed March 11, 2012. http://www.archdaily. com/215448/delta-shelter-olson-kundig-architects. “Delta Shelter.” OK – Olson Kundig. Accessed August 26, 2017. http://www.olsonkundig.com/ fi rmhistory. Diccionario de Arquitectura y Construccion. “Defi nicion de canoide y conceptos relacionados.” Accessed October 14, 2017 Dieste Eladio. Dieste Eladio 1943-1996. Translated by Michael Maloy and Harold David Kornegay, 150-167. Sevilla-Montevideo: Consejería de Obras Públicas y Transportes, 2001. Donahue, Thomas. “A Temple Reborn,” In Architecture and Urbanism, 189-193. 2003. Edward, Lifson, “Biography: Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron | The Pritzker Architecture Prize, 2001,”http://www.pritzkerprize.com/2001/bio, 2001: 1-4. English Oxford Living Dictionaries. Accessed October 27, 2017 “Firm History.” OK – Olson Kundig. Accessed August 29, 2017. http://www.olsonkundig.com/ projects/delta-shelter/. Flaherty, Joe. 2017.”Brilliant Architectural Ideas, Brought to Life in a Low-Budget Orphanage.” Wired. June 03. Accessed October 01, 2017. https://www.wired.com/2014/03/orphanages- inspired-butterfl ies-bamboo/. Frampton, Kenneth. “Botticher, Semper and the Tectonic: Core Form and Art Form.” In What is Architecture? Edited by Andrew Ballantyne. New York: Routledge, 2002. 125 Frampton, Kenneth. “Introduction: Refl ections on the Scope of the Tectonic.” In Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture, 1-27. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001. Frampton, Kenneth. Patkau Architects. The Monacelli Press, 2006. Frascari, Marco. “The Tell-the-Tale Detail.” In Theorizing a New Agenda for Architecture: An Anthology of Architectural Theory 1965-1995, edited by Kate Nesbitt, (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1996), 500-14. Freedman, Adele. A Not So Primitive Hut: For a Virgin Site in the Pacifi c Northwest. Nielsen Business Media Inc., 2001. “Gabion.” Merriam-Webster. Accessed October 23, 2017. https://www.merriamwebster.com/ dictionary/gabion.(2017): 1. Gjertsen, Andreas Grontvedt, and Mi-ju Kwon. 2009. “TYIN Tegnestue [Interview].” Space. DEC (505): 76-91. Goff, Bruce. “Bavinger House and Price House,” Global Architecture 33, 1975. Halprin, Lawrence. “Halprin’s recollections.” Progressive Architecture, February 1993, 92+. Academic OneFile. Accessed November 15, 2017. Harmon, Maris, “Nest We Grow / College of Environmental Design UC Berkeley + Kengo Kuma & Associates.” Harmon, Maris, “Nesting Instincts: In Japan, Cal Architectural Students Reinvent the Community Center.” UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design California magazine. https:// ced.berkeley.edu/events-media/news/nesting-instincts-in-japan-cal-architectural- students-reinvent-the-communit. Henry, Plummer. “Light in Japanese Architecture”, June 1995. Tokyo, Japan: U Publishing Co, 1995: 4-24. Hübsch, Heinrich. “The Principles of the Hellenic and Germanic Ways of Building with Regard to Their Application to Our Present Way of Building.” In What Style Should We Build?: The German Debate on Architectural Style. Santa Monica, CA: Getty Center for the History of Art and the Humanities, 1992, 147- 167. Joy, Rick, “Rick Joy: Tubac House,” UME, 18, 2004. Joy, Rick, Steven Holl and Juhani Pallasmaa. Rick Joy: Desert Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2002. “Kengo Kuma.” Walter Knoll. https://www.walterknoll.de/en/designer/kengo-kuma Keskeys, Paul. “Tadao Ando: Creation Is Fighting ... Designing Architecture Is a Battle”. In Architizer. 2017. Knabe, Christopher, Joerg Rainer. Noennig, and Wilhelm Klauser. “Kengo Kuma,” Shaking the foundations: Japanese architects in dialogue. Munich: Prestel, 1999, 36-45. Lyndon, Donlyn. “Lyndon’s Assessment.” Progressive Architecture, February 1993, 94+. Academic OneFile. Accessed November 15, 2017. Mallgrave, Harry Francis. “Gottfried Semper and the Idea of Style.” In Modern Architectural Theory: A Historical Survey, 1673-1968. Cambridge University Press, 2005. Mallgrave, Harry Francis. “Gustav Klemm and Gottfried Semper: The Meeting of Ethnological and Architectural Theory.” In Anthropology and Aesthetics, No. 9. Spring, 1985. Mallgrave, Harry Francis. “The Four Elements of Architecture.” In Architectural Theory. Blackwell Publishing, 2006. “MLTW, Moore, Lyndon, Turnbull, and Whitaker.” SFMOMA. Accessed September 17, 2017. https://www.sfmoma.org/artist/MLTW_(Moore,_Lyndon,_Turnbull,_and_Whitaker)¬

“MLTW.” MLTW - Great Buildings Online. Accessed September 18, 2017. http://www.greatbuildings. com/architects/MLTW.html. Moore, Charles and Bloomer, Kent. “Body.” In Body, Memory, and Architecture, 138. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1977. Moore, Charles. “Moore’s home turf.” Progressive Architecture, Feb. 1993, p. 98+. Academic OneFile. Accessed November 15, 2017.

126 N/A. 2010. “TYIN Tegnestue: Soe Ker Tie Hias, Noh Bo, Tak, Thailand, 2009.” Lotus International (142): 46-48. “Nest We Grow / College of Environmental Design UC Berkeley Kengo Kuma & Associates.” ArchDaily. January 28, 2015. http://www.archdaily.com/592660/nest-we-grow-college- of-environmental-design-uc-berkeley-kengo-kuma-and-associates Ngo, Dung, Tom Kundig: Houses. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006. Patkau, John. “A Conversation with John Patkau.” Interview by The Canadian Architect, 1993. Patrimonio Uruguay.“Tradicion e Innovacion” un documental sobre el Ingeniero Eladio Dieste.” Published January 2016 at Montevideo, Uruguay. Video, 22:06 Raymond, Ryan, “Memories of Light, Curtain, and Stone.” In Architecture and Urbanism. Vol. 4. Series 331. Tokyo, Japan: U Publishing Co, 1998:24-27. “Revisiting Memu Meadows - Architecture - Domus.” Domusweb.it. https://www.domusweb.it/en/ architecture/2015/01/15/nest_we_grow.html. Rykwert, Joseph, The Necessity of Artifi ce, New York: Rizzoli International Publications, 1982. Saieh, Nico. 2009. Soe Ker Tie House/TYIN Tegnestue. June 22. Accessed October 1, 2017. http:// www.archdaily.com/25748/soe-ker-tie-house-tyin-tegnestue. Schwartz, Chad. Introducing Architectural Tectonics, xliii. New York: Routledge. 2017 Sekler, Eduard. “Structure, Construction, Tectonics.” In Structure in Art and Science, edited by Gyorgy Kepes,89-95. New York: Braziller, 1965. Semper, Gottfried. “The Four Elements of Architecture: A Contribution to the Comparative Study of Architecture.” In The Four Elements and Other Writings, edited by Harry Francis Mallgrave and Wolfgang Herrmann, 74-129. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010. Silloway, Kari. “Komyo-ji Temple by Tadao Ando,” In Ehime, Japan, 2017. Steves, James, and Susan Wilson. The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2015 Sirefman, Susanna. “Rick Joy’s Tubac House: Desert Treasure.” Graphis 61, no. 355 (January 2005): 34-39. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1459605933. “The Sea Ranch: Qualifi ed Vernacular.” Journal of Architectural Education 63, no. 1 (2009): 81-89. Turnbull, William Jr. Global Architecture Detail. The Sea Ranch Condominium. 3rd ed. Tokyo, Japan: A.D.A EDITA, 1963-69. Unwin, Simon. “Condominium One, the Sea Ranch.” In Twenty-Five Buildings Every Architect Should Understand. second ed., 153. New York, NY: Routledge, 2015. Zevi, Bruno. Architecture as Space: How to Look at Architecture. Translated by Milton Gendel. New York: Horizon Press, 1974. Zumthor, Peter. Architecture and Urbanism February ,1998, Extra Edition, Tokyo, Japan: a+u Publishing Co., 1998, 8, 12, 28.

127 128 Project Credits

Agosta Residence | Patkau Architects Architect: Patkau Architects, Inc. Client: William and Karin Agosta Architect’s Website: www.patkau.ca Structural Engineer: Fast & Epp Structural Engineers Contractors: Ravenhill Construction Inc.

Bavinger House | Bruce Goff Architect: Bruce Goff Client: Eugene, Nancy, and Bill Bavinger

Cristo Obrero Church | Eladio Dieste Architect: Eladio Dieste Client: Catholic Church Civil Engineer: Dieste y Montañez S.A

Delta Shelter | Olson Kundig Architect: Design Principal- Tom Kundig Project Manager: Ellen Cecil Interior Designer: Debbie Kennedy Architect’s Website: www.olsonkundig.com Structural Engineer: MCE Structural Consultants Shutter Engineer and Fabricator: Turner Exhibits Contractors: Tim Tanner Manufacturers: Fleetwood, Knoll, Milgard, Poltrona Frau, Cassina, AEP Span, CECO Craftspeople: Farwest Iron Works, Inc.

Dominus Winery | Herzog & de Meuron Architect: Herzog and de Meuron Client: Christian Moueix Architect’s Website: https://www.herzogdemeuron.com/ Project Team: Uli Ackva, Béla Berec, Ines Huber, Nathalie Kury, Mario Meier Structural Engineer: Zucco Fagent Associates Electrical Engineer: Hansen & Slaughter, Inc. Consultants: Plumbing/HVAC - Larkin & Associates Contractors: Wright Contracting, Inc Subcontractors: Construction - Valley Architects

Komyo-Ji Temple | Tadao Ando and Associates Architect: Tadao Ando and Associates Client: Komyo-ji temple committee and head priest Architect’s Website: http://www.tadao-ando.com

129 Nest We Grow | Kengo Kuma and Associates Architect: Kengo Kuma & Associates, College of Environmental Design UC Berkeley Client: Annual LIXIL International Design-build Competition Architect’s Website: http://www.kkaa.co.jp/ Structural Engineer: Massato Araya Mechanical Engineer: Tomonari Yashiro Laboratory at the Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo/Bumpei Magori, Yu Morishita Contractors: Takahashi Construction Company

Sea Ranch Condominium 1 | MLTW Architect: MLTW (Charles Moore, Donlyn Lyndon, William Turnbull, Richard Whitaker)

Shelter for Roman Ruins | Peter Zumthor Architect: Peter Zumthor Client: City of Chur Structural Engineer: Jürg Buchli Collaboration and Construction Supervision: Reto Schaufelbühl

Soe Ker Tie Houses | TYIN Tegnestue Architect: Pasi Aalto Andreas Grontvedt Gjertsen Yashar Hanstad Magnus Henriksen Line Ramstad Erlend Bauck Sole Client : Ole Jorgen Edna Architect’s Website: http://www.tyinarchitects.com/ Built by: TYIN Tegnestue/Local Workers from Noh Bo

Tyler Residence | Rick Joy Architect: Rick Joy Architects Project Team: Rick Joy, Andy Tinucci, Chelsea Grassinger, Franz Buhler Client: Warren and Rose Tyler Structural Engineer: Southwest Structural Engineers Mechanical Engineer: Otterbein Mechanical Engineering

13 0 131 132 Figure Credits

All fi gures below are credited to a contributing author, a photographer, or an architecture fi rm. Thank you to all of the individuals and fi rms that provided permission to reproduce materials for this book. All contributing authors have made every effort to contact and acknowledge all copyright holders.

1 | Agosta Residence Figure 1.1: Photograph taken by James Dow, courtesy of Patkau Architects. Figure 1.2: Drawing by Ashley Brunton. Figure 1.3: Drawing by Ashley Brunton. Figure 1.4: Photograph taken by James Dow, courtesy of Patkau Architects. Figure 1.5: Drawing by Ashley Brunton. Figure 1.6: Photograph taken by James Dow, courtesy of Patkau Architects. Figure 1.7: Drawing by Ashley Brunton. Figure 1.8: Photograph taken by James Dow, courtesy of Patkau Architects. Figure 1.9: Drawing by Ashley Brunton. Figure 1.10: Photograph taken by James Dow, courtesy of Patkau Architects.

2 | Bavinger House Figure 2.1: Photograph taken by Victor Hamberlin, found at https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/125761169@N06/15268693034/in/photolist-pgf3ub Figure 2.2: Drawing from The Art Institute of Chicago, found at http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/178815?search_no=1&index=1 Figure 2.3: Drawing from The Art Institute of Chicago, found at http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/artwork/144294?search_no=3&index=13 Figure 2.4: Photograph taken by Rex Brown, found at https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/maduko/5861727733/in/album-72157627026211180/ Figure 2.5: Drawing by Jason Jirele. Figure 2.6: Photograph taken by Rex Brown, found at https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/maduko/5861726007/in/album-72157627026211180/ Figure 2.7: Drawing by Jason Jirele. Figure 2.8: Photograph taken by Rex Brown, found at https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/maduko/5861731673/in/album-72157627026211180/ Figure 2.9: Drawing by Jason Jirele. Figure 2.10: Photograph taken by Rex Brown, found at https://www.fl ickr.com/photos/maduko/5862272934/in/album-72157627026211180/

3 | Cristo Obrero Church Figure 3.1: Photograph taken by Lauro Rocha, found in article by Jade Budd* Figure 3.2: Drawing by Giuliana Fustagno. Figure 3.3: Drawing by Giuliana Fustagno. Figure 3.4: Photograph taken by Lauro Rocha, found in article by Jade Budd*

133 Figure 3.5: Photograph taken by Lauro Rocha, found in article by Jade Budd* Figure 3.6: Drawing by Giuliana Fustagno. Figure 3.7: Photograph taken by Lauro Rocha, found in article by Jade Budd* Figure 3.8: Drawing by Giuliana Fustagno. Figure 3.9: Drawing by Giuliana Fustagno. Figure 3.10: Photograph taken by Lauro Rocha, found in article by Jade Budd* *Budd, Jade. “Inside*-Iglesia del Cristo Obrero.” Befront Magazine, October 17, 2017. http:// befrontmag.com/2016/10/17/inside-iglesia-del-cristo-obrero/

4 | Delta Shelter Figure 4.1: Photograph by Tim Bies, found on ArchDaily* Figure 4.2: Drawing recreated by Jessica Wyatt. Figure 4.3: Drawing recreated by Jessica Wyatt. Figure 4.4: Drawing by Jessica Wyatt. Figure 4.5: Photograph taken by Benjamin Benschneider, found on ArchDaily* Figure 4.6: Drawing by Jessica Wyatt. Figure 4.7: Photograph taken by Benjamin Benschneider, found on ArchDaily* Figure 4.8: Drawing by Jessica Wyatt. Figure 4.9: Photograph by Tim Bies, found on ArchDaily* Figure 4.10: Photograph series taken by Benjamin Benschneider, found on ArchDaily* * “Delta Shelter | Olson Kundig.” Arch Daily, October 3, 2017. http://www.archdaily.com/215448/ delta-shelter-olson-kundig-architects.

5 | Dominus Winery Figure 5.1: Photograph taken by Kevin Matthews, courtesy of Architectureweek.com. Figure 5.2: Drawing by Alexandra Wilson. Figure 5.3: Photograph taken by Steven Rothfi eld, courtesy of Dominus Winery Estates. Figure 5.4: Drawing by Alexandra Wilson. Figure 5.5: Drawing by Alexandra Wilson. Figure 5.6: Photograph taken by Bryan Wright, courtesy of Wright Contracting Incorporated. Figure 5.7: Drawing by Alexandra Wilson. Figure 5.8: Photograph taken by Bryan Wright, courtesy of Wright Contracting Incorporated. Figure 5.9: Photograph taken by Bryan Wright, courtesy of Wright Contracting Incorporated. Figure 5.10: Photograph taken by Jessica Mairs, courtesy of Dezeen.

6 | Komyo-Ji Temple Figure 6.1: Photograph taken by Kari Silloway, 2004, found at Galinsky.com. http://www.galinsky. com/buildings/komyoji/ Figure 6.2: Drawing by Dipen Patel Figure 6.3: Drawing by Dipen Patel Figure 6.4: Drawing by Dipen Patel Figure 6.5: Photograph taken by Kaiki Nakamori, found at http://nakamouri.tumblr.com/ Figure 6.6: Photograph taken by Design Offi ce Ehime Matsuyama, found at http://tadaoh.net/ design/architecture/komyoji.html Figure 6.7: Drawing by Dipen Patel Figure 6.8: Photograph taken by Emma, found at http://blog.ulifestyle.com.hk/travel_blogger/ emma/2009/07/31/ Figure 6.9: Drawing by Dipen Patel Figure 6.10: Drawing by Dipen Patel Figure 6.11: Photograph taken by Mi Chele L, found at http://architectuul.com/architecture/komyo-ji- temple 134 7 | Nest We Grow Figure 7.1: Photograph taken by Shinkenchiku-sha, found at https://www.archdaily.com/592660/ nest-we-grow-college-of-environmental-design-uc-berkeley-kengo-kuma-and-associates Figure 7.2: Drawing recreated by Eddie Garcia. Figure 7.3: Drawing recreated by Eddie Garcia. Figure 7.4: Drawing recreated by Eddie Garcia. Figure 7.5: Photograph taken by Hsin-Yu Chen. Figure 7.6: Drawing recreated by Eddie Garcia. Figure 7.7: Photograph taken by Hsin-Yu Chen. Figure 7.8: Drawing recreated by Eddie Garcia. Figure 7.9: Photograph taken by Hsin-Yu Chen. Figure 7.10: Photograph taken by Hsin-Yu Chen.

8 | Sea Ranch Condominium One Figure 8.1: Photograph courtesy of Jim Alinder, found at House of the Day: Sea Ranch Condominium by MLTW | Journal.” The Modern House. Accessed September 16, 2017. http://www. themodernhouse.com/journal/house-of-the-dayranchcondominium-by-mltw/. Figure 8.2: Photograph courtesy of Donylyn Lyndon and Jim Alinder. Figure 8.3: Drawing recreated by Alycia Pappan. Figure 8.4: Drawing recreated by Alycia Pappan. Figure 8.5: Photograph courtesy of Buzz Yudell and John Ruble, found at “Why Charles Moore (Still) Matters.” Why Charles Moore (Still) Matters | Moore Ruble Yudell Architects & Planners. Accessed September 16, 2017. http://www.moorerubleyudell.com/journal/why-charles- moore-still-matters. Figure 8.6: Drawing by Alycia Pappan. Figure 8.7: Drawing by Alycia Pappan. Figure 8.8: Photograph courtesy of Turnbull Griffi n Haesloop. Figure 8.9: Drawing by Alycia Pappan. Figure 8.10: Photograph courtesy of Jim Alinder, found at Lyndon, Donlyn. “The Sea Ranch: Qualifi ed Vernacular.” Journal of Architectural Education 63, no. 1 (October 2009): 81-89.

9 | Shelter for Roman Ruins Figure 9.1: Photograph found at, Venezia, Nicholas Lee. October 16, 2011. Communicating Architecture, The Richard A. Campbell Travelling Scholarship. http:// communicatingarchitecture.blogspot.co.nz/2011/10/shelters-for-roman-archaeological- site.html Figure 9.2: Drawing by Matt Dickman. Figure 9.3: Drawing by Matt Dickman. Figure 9.4: Drawing by Matt Dickman. Figure 9.5: Photograph taken by Helene Binet, found at “Exterior View at Night.” Arch Society, 13 Apr. 2009, www.archsociety.com/news.php?extend.93.1. Figure 9.6: Drawing by Matt Dickman. Figure 9.7: Photograph taken by Helene Binet, found at Jeff Kaplon. “Skylight over Ruins.” Tumblr.com, 10 Apr. 2013, www.subtilitas.site/post/47666578955/peter-zumthor-shelter-for-roman- ruins-chur. Figure 9.8: Photograph taken by Helene Binet, found at Jackie Craven. “South View of Shelter.” Thoughtco.com, 22 July 2016, www.thoughtco.com/peter-zumthor-architecture- portfolio-4065270. Figure 9.9: Drawing by Matt Dickman. Figure 9.10: Photograph found at, Quindos, Juan Carlos. “Close up of Exterior Stair.” Pinterest.com, www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/198228821072260682/.

135 10 | Soe Ker Tie Houses Figure 10.1: Photograph taken by Pasi Aalto. Figure 10.2: Drawing recreated by Ashton McWhorter. Figure 10.3: Drawing recreated by Ashton McWhorter. Figure 10.4: Photograph taken by Pasi Aalto. Figure 10.5: Photograph taken by Pasi Aalto. Figure 10.6: Drawing by Ashton McWhorter. Figure 10.7: Drawing by Ashton McWhorter. Figure 10.8: Photograph taken by Pasi Aalto. Figure 10.9: Photograph taken by Pasi Aalto. Figure 10.10: Drawing by Ashton McWhorter.

11 | Tyler Residence Figure 11.1: Photograph taken by Jeff Goldberg, courtesy of Esto. Figure 11.2: Drawing by George Aguilar. Figure 11.3: Drawing by George Aguilar. Figure 11.4: Drawing by George Aguilar. Figure 11.5: Photograph taken by Jeff Goldberg, courtesy of Esto. Figure 11.6: Photograph taken by Jeff Goldberg, courtesy of Esto. Figure 11.7: Drawing by George Aguilar. Figure 11.8: Photograph taken by Jeff Goldberg, courtesy of Esto. Figure 11.9: Drawing by George Aguilar. Figure 11.10: Photograph taken by Jeff Goldberg, courtesy of Esto.

13 6 137 When a structural concept has found its implementation through construction, the visual result will affect us through certain expressive qualities which clearly have something to do with the play of forces and corresponding arrangement of parts in the building, yet cannot be described in terms of construction and structure alone. For these qualities, which are expressive of a relation of form to force, the term tectonic should be reserved.

- Eduard Sekler, Structure, Construction, Tectonics, p. 89

Structure has long been considered the expertise of the engineer, and construction, the expertise of the builder. The architect, however, is responsible for the domain arising from the intersection of the two, as poetically described in the quote above delivered by noted architectural historian Eduard Sekler. Form and Force is an investigation into the multifaceted nature of the theory of architectural tectonics, exploring the realm of architectural study that examines the resolution of structural expression in the means of construction as well as the resulting impact on the qualities of architectural space.

The book examines eleven built works of architecture located throughout the world, illuminating the expressive qualities of their structures, the consideration for their details, their constructional makeup and anatomy, and their distinct relationship to place, amongst other objectives. Many of these projects are designed by renowned architects, such as Herzog and de Meuron, Olson Kundig, Kengo Kuma and Patkau Architects, and have achieved signifi cant praise, while others are lesser known. All of these projects, however, are rigorous in their design and clear in their relationship to tectonic thought. Each chapter highlights a different work, discussing the specifi cs of the project through a comparison of tectonic principles. The hope is that by learning from the collection, there is a greater understanding of the poetic potential of architecture.